Why a Mac and not PC

[joseph nocera]

--

joseph nocera I have both the Mac and PC Since I got the mac, MY PC stays idle most of the time I just use it for back Up and stay off the internet Virus and worms are not a problem with the mac MAC is also upgrading my computer automaticly. Microsoft wates in till your computer go's to hell before they help.

 

[Pork Slinger]

"Adobe today said it would not deliver native Intel versions of currently shipping professional products"

What that means is full performance from Photoshop on an Intel Mac will have to wait until CS3 or whatever they call it. Till then you are running photoshop thru the converter which robs performance.

Not a reason to buy one flavor or the other just be aware of the facts.
--

When I was a kid we used pin hole cameras when not borrowing the old mans Rolleiflex.

 

[Thomas Sapiano]

Can you say that in a month period, none of your PC computers hangs
or just goes wonky? The amount of abuses my DP G5 goes through a
week, would bring a PC to it's knees, for a fact, working on a
200-300mb 16bit CMYK photoshop file, then importing it to a
Illustrator file, when background printing or raw conversion is
going on... Perhaps, you should try that on your PC. And see how it
goes.

For a properly built PC, none of that is a problem - the issue is that many mainstream manufacturers try to cut corners by using cheap components and/or bad drivers. As drivers and expansion cards have direct access to the rest of the hardware, malfunctions in either can easilly bring down the machine.

For instance, the machine I am using right now is four and a half years old and has never once hung or gone 'wonky' on me. I perform heavy batch operations on a daily basis, along with processing large multi-layer image files - I also do some 3D work, as well as other heavy non-imaging tasks. It's given me perfect stability since I purchased it, and if the OS itself was somehow fundamentally flaky that would be impossible. While prior versions of Windows certainly did have inherent stability problems (as did OS 9 and earlier), I've had no problems with any carefully built machines since Windows 2000 (and OS 10.1 for that matter).

The difference between this and your average OEM box, however, is that it was carefully designed and built out of workstation-class components. Apple machines are often more stable than your average PC simply because Apple is very careful to do the same thing - a bad driver or malfunctioning hardware will take down any OS, however it's not all that hard to avoid those bits if you are careful about it While the microkernel architecture used by OS X can help mitigate some of these problems, it's still a better policy to avoid them in the first place regardless of what platform you are using.

The caveat, however, is that building a PC with quality bits will drive the costs of that machine up - causing any price advantage to evaporate. Many workstation/server components are significantly more expensive than their desktop bretheren and provide only minimal performance advantages - the difference is that they are more robust and designed to handle heavier use environments. Those factors are often difficult to measure, so they aren't that obvious to mainstream users.

The catch with PCs is that there is a wide range of different choices available to users. You can buy everything from a $300 desktop to a $35,000 server - while based on the same basic platform, those two machines often have less in common with one another than either has with a Mac. For people who can carefully marshal those choices, that is a good thing as it allows us to carefully engineer a machine specifically for the workflow that we will be using it for. For others, those choices can also be a liability because it leaves the door open to making the wrong one and ending up with problems.

Apple's machines are often splendid examples of good engineering - they are well designed, well built and well integrated. While the hardware can't be tuned to the degree that a custom PC can, the available configurations are often quite effective and well matched to the workflow of many users. If one of their models matches up with a user's requirements (as the Macbook Pro did for me) then they shouldn't hesitate to buy it. That doesn't, however, mean that they are necessarilly the optimal choice for everyone

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Paid a fellow Photographer a visit and he has a new mac pro
something laptop.
As a PC user and never worked on a mac I see he is using a program
called Apeture to convert raw files and do basic editing to his
photos. This seemed easy and good especialy all the archiving and
email feutures built in.

Now I wonder am I missing something? and have the following questions

1. Can you network a mac to a pc computer and share files?

Yes

2. When one does buy a mac how many other programs come with it
like word, outlook ect. or similar.

You get the usual stuff. check the apple website.

3. Is a mac of the same value realy faster and better than a pc?

No, they are more expensive in general. Pc's are better value.

4. If and when comunicating with other people via email or the
internet that have pc is it a problem?

Not an issue at all.

5.Does this Apeture program convert most raw files on the market?

No...its decent enough...not that cheap, but other 3rd party programs support more files to date.

6. How user friendly is a mac?

The OS is very nice, takes a while to get used to compared to windows..but its a good one. The main argument against macs is you have a limited hardware choice, and there is a lot more software for the pc, compared to mac. Macs are also weak for games...(quantity)

8. Can one customise the mac opperating system like I can with
windows?

To a degree as with all OS....

A reply from someone who has gone from PC to Mac will be apreciated

Thanks

Deon

Macs are said by many as ideal for photography, in truth the pc is just as ideal...

Macs are very nice....but a lot just buy them because its a status symbol not a tool!

 

[Mr Fee]

There are too many reasons as to why I would go Mac over PC, but here's a few:

Firstly, colour management. This is a complete nightmare on a Windows based computer right now. With my Mac I hook up my Spyder2PRO, pick a calibration profile, leave it for 5-10 minutes, it's done, and everything uses the profile.

On Windows, I had to update to the latest version, go into safe mode, remove the nVidia drivers, remove the windows colour management powertoy, install the latest nVidia stuff, making sure I didn't go into the configuration for it this time. I had to get rid of Adobe gamma, and then create the profile. Unlike a Mac, once the profile is done, that's not it.

For a start, it has to use an external app to load the profile in the first place, which gives an error saying it's been too long since it was calibrated on anything other than my account (I only ever run the calibration on mine) it doesn't always apply properly, and doesn't get applied to all elements - this is particularly obvious because this monitor is getting on, and has a significant green push - the calibration brings luminance down over 20cd/m2.

Video with overlays? Uncalibrated. Cursors? Uncalibrated. That is a huge problem - because the display was so far out uncalibrated, the cursors basically looked like they were glowing green. (because they're brighter than the rest) And because your eye can only adjust to one temperature at a time, it was making white things look red, and the cursor green. I finally solved this by using "Cursor XP" which renders the cursors differently, and does apply the profile, so my eyes can adjust to the proper temperature but again, it doesn't apply to everything. I dread to think what it would be like to have a multi-monitor setup and be handling printer profiles etc too.

On a Mac, it just works.

There's also window management - exposé is a godsend. Windows is horrible to use, being very awkward to switch between windows and applications - things become very cluttered very quickly. With Exposé, I can see everything that's running, or all of one app's windows visually at the press of a button. I can set up hot-corners to make things even easier. For example, if I'm dragging files off the network or an external device and want them on my desktop, I just start dragging, flick my mouse to the top-right corner, and I'm at my desktop, able to then navigate with spring-loaded folders that open as I hover over them. (and close once the file has been transferred)

If I'm dragging a file between applications (OSX does this for virtually everything - Windows rarely does) I can flick my mouse to the bottom-left corner of the screen, see all my windows, hover over the one I want for a second to select it, and drag the file / text / image etc into the window where I want it. It's not until you've been using Macs for a few months and go back to Windows that you realise how useful it is, and how bad Windows' management is.

[Command] + [Tab] switches between applications, rather than every window on the system like you get in Windows (alt + tab) and then [command] + ['] switches between windows in the selected app - this is much quicker and easier.

Everything in general is just easier on a Mac, and overall is more stable, from my experience. (and no, I've not had a Windows machine crash since the XP betas) I'm just talking about overall reliability and stability of how things work. In Windows, sometimes things just stop working for no apparent reason. I've never had that happen with OSX.

And hey, if you want Windows, or come across a tiny app that doesn't have an equivalent on OSX (rare, but it can happen) then you can just use "Parallels" on the new Intel macs to run Windows in a window on OSX on the second processor at the same time, with very little performance hit. (especially compared to old stuff like Virtual PC)

You can't do that on a Windows machine with OSX. (legally)

 

[Thomas Sapiano]

[Command] + [Tab] switches between applications, rather than every
window on the system like you get in Windows (alt + tab) and then
[command] + ['] switches between windows in the selected app - this
is much quicker and easier.

That's a bit of a subjective factor - I still strongly prefer the windows style of handling this process, as it lets me move back and forth between documents in several programs much faster than any other mechanism. Even with a whole pile of windows open, I've never had any problems switching to the one that I want without looking at the screen (ie subconsciously keeping track of where windows are in the queue and just pressing the button the requisite number of times). By the time that the expose animation finishes zooming out, I'm generally already at the window that I want and ready to work.

Thankfully, there is a program called Witch ( http://www.petermaurer.de/nasi.php?thema=witch&sprache=english&kopf=labor ) that lets you do this on OS X, so it's not really a problem. AFAIK there is no tool to go the other way, so if you like the conventional OS X behaviour then you've only got one choice there. Naturally, if I leave the computer to do something else and lose track of where I was, Expose is certainly a nice tool - however I rarely find myself using it while at the workstation (as Command+Tab is much faster)

 

[Earendil_Star]

[Command] + [Tab] switches between applications, rather than every
window on the system like you get in Windows (alt + tab) and then
[command] + ['] switches between windows in the selected app - this
is much quicker and easier.

That's a bit of a subjective factor -

Subject in whether you like it. It is not subjective that there are multiple ways to switch between apps/windows in OSX that do not have an equivalent in windows afaik.

I still strongly prefer the
windows style of handling this process, as it lets me move back and
forth between documents in several programs much faster than any
other mechanism. Even with a whole pile of windows open, I've
never had any problems switching to the one that I want without
looking at the screen (ie subconsciously keeping track of where
windows are in the queue and just pressing the button the requisite
number of times). By the time that the expose animation finishes
zooming out, I'm generally already at the window that I want and
ready to work.

Thankfully, there is a program called Witch

( http://www.petermaurer.de/nasi.php?thema=witch&sprache=english&kopf=labor ) that lets you do this on OS X, so it's not really a problem. AFAIK there is no tool to go the other way, so if you like the conventional OS X behaviour then you've only got one choice there.

Ah, I see what you were looking for now. It still would be faster with the tab-app / tab-app-window than a tab for all windows. That is if you can keep the order of eveyrthing in your head and can use two keys instead of one

Wait a minute...after trying it, alt-tab does the same thing cmd-tab does in OSX, it JUST switches applications. I'm confused what your issue is with OSX?

Personally I use Exposes to much greater effect than tabbing. I never use tabbing unless I want to quit a bunch of apps at once (in OSX once you cmd-tab you can press 'Q' on the selected app and it will quit it). Exposes for me is lightning fast on my three year old laptop. I have it keyed to one of my mouse buttons and can switch between ANY window in .5 seconds. Better yet I can drag files and text between multiple otherwise hidden windows using Exposes.

PLUS, if you open and play 6 videos at once you can expose them and watch them all at once ;-)

Naturally, if I leave the computer to do something else and lose track of where I was, Expose is certainly a nice tool - however I rarely find myself using it while at the workstation (as Command+Tab is much faster)

To each his own, of course. If that is faster by all means use it! Many many people are't as keyboard savy though, and a very fast visual aid like exposes, or those of us with multi-button mice that don't have a problem not having both hands on the keyboard at all times, find Exposes nice, I'm sure.

It just occured to me that those that do word precessing and documents probably would like alt tab, as both hands are on the keyboard. When working in Photoshop/2D Animation or Web Work, I always have a hand on the mouse. Also the visual aid is far more helpful that whatever default name my images might be currently named. Documents by default are oftentimes better labeled.

Tyler Zuck

 

[Thomas Sapiano]

Subject in whether you like it. It is not subjective that there are
multiple ways to switch between apps/windows in OSX that do not
have an equivalent in windows afaik.

Correct - I was simply referring to the last sentance in the previous quote (ie that the standard OS X Cmd Tab mechanism is 'quicker and easier'), not disagreeing with the advantage of multiple options

Ah, I see what you were looking for now. It still would be faster
with the tab-app / tab-app-window than a tab for all windows. That
is if you can keep the order of eveyrthing in your head and can use
two keys instead of one
Wait a minute...after trying it, alt-tab does the same thing
cmd-tab does in OSX, it JUST switches applications. I'm confused
what your issue is with OSX?

Alt-Tab on windows switches between all of the individual top-level windows on the machine. Sub-windows within MDI programs like Photoshop are still monolithic (Ctrl+Tab does the same thing as Cmd+' here), however programs like web browsers, notepad windows, email messages, FTP clients, etc. get paged through individually. When using OS X in it's default configuration, all of the web browser windows are in one big blob, as is every TextEdit window, etc. This is one of the things that I like about Witch, as it exposes every window to the Cmd+Tab sequence.

Personally I use Exposes to much greater effect than tabbing. I
never use tabbing unless I want to quit a bunch of apps at once (in
OSX once you cmd-tab you can press 'Q' on the selected app and it
will quit it). Exposes for me is lightning fast on my three year
old laptop. I have it keyed to one of my mouse buttons and can
switch between ANY window in .5 seconds. Better yet I can drag
files and text between multiple otherwise hidden windows using
Exposes.
PLUS, if you open and play 6 videos at once you can expose them and
watch them all at once ;-)

Oh, I certainly love the concept and feel that it is a powerful tool - my point was simply that this sort of this is not a universal constant, and what is the best option for one person isn't necessarilly the best for everyone else

It just occured to me that those that do word precessing and
documents probably would like alt tab, as both hands are on the
keyboard. When working in Photoshop/2D Animation or Web Work, I
always have a hand on the mouse. Also the visual aid is far more
helpful that whatever default name my images might be currently
named. Documents by default are oftentimes better labeled.

With Photoshop or Illustrator I've always got one hand on the keyboard and one hand on the mouse. When not using the keyboard for other tasks, my hands rest over the Alt (or Command) and Tab keys so that I can quickly move between programs. As most common operations are between the last two programs, this is usually a single twitch of the finger. Even when working with a dozen different windows, the switch can be done in a fraction of a second and doesn't require any consicious thought. I don't have to look at the switching interface durring this process, nor do I need to make any decissions so I've found that it simply becomes a subconsicious reflex.

Expose requires one to press a button, look at the screen, move the mouse cursor and press another button to make the switch. As the mouse movement required depends on the current position of the cursor and the position of the window on screen, I find that I can't easilly refine it into a reflex (as the movement changes each time). Purhaps if I did it more often I'd get better at it, but as Alt/Cmd+Tab works so well (and can be set to work the same on all platforms) I've had little reason to retrain myself.

Either way, as you noted this is the type of thing that is going to be very different from person to person. I've long been the type to do as much from the keyboard as possible (a few years using VI will do that to you), so it's natural that I prefer keyboard shortcuts to menus/toolbars/etc. The point is simply that UI elements such as this are rarely objectively superior or inferior - each person will interpret the system in their own way and, as such, what is 'better' depends on who is using it.

 

[Adam Obradovic]

Most common answer Mac users tend to give in the mac vs pc argument is that Macs look better. However, aesthetics aside, the advantages for photographers are not there.

Its all down to the user/builder who makes the pc. Should you have a high budget of around $1500-2000 to spend on a new pc, you are getting a far faster machine then a mac equivilent. While out-of-the-box pc software is not as comprahensive as a mac, chances are that you will be running a version of PS, and maybe your camera's software anyway and NOT the operating system stuff found on macs. AMD have just announced new prices for their cpus ( http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3361 ), so PCs are even sweeter by comparison.

Another common complaint about PCs is the viruses/adaware etc. Frankly, if anyone opens an attachment in an email from an unknown source, then that person doesnt deserve an internet connection. Same with spyware. Its all down to the common user sense...

And as far as crashing. I havent had a blue screen error since Win 98 days...

Oh, and yes I have used an iMac at uni. I found It very slow (maybe because its on a huge network?), loading CS was a pain... my 3 year old pc feels faster in everything imac struggled in. I have no idea what macheads talk about when they say pcs are slower. But the biggest problem were the keyboard shortcuts (this is probably the same with mac => pc). Anything with ctrl button is replaced with apple key and I just cant get used to that even after 6 months of using macs.

 

[Adam Obradovic]

Oh, yesterday I had to use Safari web browser, and for some reason it kept logging me out from university network. Tried another mac, same thing. Loaded up Firefox, worked like a charm.

 

[Adam Obradovic]

They still run too.

 

[KennyB]

I've done some reading on monitors from MAC. It appears that their monitors are not quite up to snuff when it comes to reliable calibration. I've never heard anyone complain about this before, so are some of the reviews incorrect, or are most using a different monitor? This just didn't seem right based on that MAC is best suited for this type of application.
Ken
--
Happy to Photograph!
Ken
http://kennyb.smugmug.com
http://www.pricelessdigitals.com

 

[snowwrestler]

Hardware

It's worth mentioning that Apple specs nice hardware for their machines, and does a good job putting them together. With Bootcamp it IS possible to directly compared hardware now, and it's become clear that there is more to a Mac than just the OS. Many reviewers (professional and otherwise) have noted that Apple machines run Windows as fast and reliably as any other high-end machine out there. So part of the "extra cost" of a Mac is the fact that you're getting great hardware that is put together well.

Is running a Windows a great reason to get a Mac? No not really. But it is a great reason to not worry about getting a Mac--you've got the ultimate in interoperability with a Mac machine.

Operating system

OSX is not fool proof--I've seen plenty of apps crash unexpectedly, seen weird UI quirks (usually involving the Dock) that required a reboot, and with every OS update there are reports of problems (usually not severe but still there). It handles multiple users well but so does Windows, and I have not seen a Windows box crash since the release of XP, nor a Mac crash since 10.2 was released.

One problem that Windows can have, that Macs do not, is malware. This can kill the user experience, as once a PC is compromised it starts to become sluggish and experience errors. This is one area where thousands-seat corporate installations are meaningless as data. With so many corporate Windows seats, most likely the machines are being managed remotedly professionals, protected by a professionally configured hardware firewall, updates are being tested before being rolled out to users, and users may even be locked down (cannot install software). People with single Windows boxes at home are much more free to screw up their machines. Windows is just more vulnerable.

One advantage for creatives on the Mac OS is the various UI tricks like the Dock, Expose, Dashboard, and column view. The Dock makes it very easy to keep a project workflow humming along and to keep track of files and programs. Expose makes it easy to just work, but still not lose track of all your windows and programs.

Software

Out of the box, a Mac can ingest, edit, and organize thousands of digital photos (even RAW), ingest and organize thousands of songs, make movies, make DVDs, make Web sites, record and mix audio, keep track of contacts and dates, handle Internet stuff like e-mail, Web surfing, IM and teleconferencing, and do Unix or Linux programming. Windows does not include that BUT most Windows boxes also come with a copy of MS Office, which is usually an extra buy on the Mac. Like or hate MS Office, it is a world-wide standard that you might have to work with. Overall I would give the Mac the edge, but if you know work with MS Office a lot, factor that into the cost.

Support

This is one area where Apple really shines--they are consistently rated at or near the top of the computer industry for service by customer surveys. This is a failing of most PC companies, with even Dell getting terrible service reviews lately. And because Mac configurations are standardized, you can take it to any Mac shop in the world to get looked at in their "Genius Bar."

 

[pixelbender]

Most common answer Mac users tend to give in the mac vs pc argument
is that Macs look better. However, aesthetics aside, the advantages
for photographers are not there.

Really? Where are all these theoretical posts you mention? They DO look better, and as one poster mentioned you'll be hardpressed (if it isn't impossible) to find a machine as powerful as the iMac that takes up as much space.

Its all down to the user/builder who makes the pc. Should you have
a high budget of around $1500-2000 to spend on a new pc, you are
getting a far faster machine then a mac equivilent.

Yes, Macs are more expensive. HOWEVER, buying any higher end Mac these days and throw $200 worth of RAM into it and you're SCREAMING. It doesn't matter if the PC is faster in benchmarks if the time between photoshop edits is nil. Many people would be happy to pay the higher price for a better user experience. Should I also mention that Apple has consistenly been rated higher than ANY PC parts or whole PC manufacturer in customer service and satisfaction for many years now. Even the pro-PC mags are the ones reporting this!

While
out-of-the-box pc software is not as comprahensive as a mac,
chances are that you will be running a version of PS, and maybe
your camera's software anyway and NOT the operating system stuff
found on macs. AMD have just announced new prices for their cpus
( http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3361 ), so PCs are
even sweeter by comparison.

Let's talk about the most important software, the OPERATING SYTEM. Anyone who has used both Windows and OS X extensively for any amount of time will tell you they prefer OS X. Seriously, the extra software that comes with OS X is just a bonus, and it probably won't be used by anyone doing mostly photography (at a pro level) anyways.

Another common complaint about PCs is the viruses/adaware etc.
Frankly, if anyone opens an attachment in an email from an unknown
source, then that person doesnt deserve an internet connection.
Same with spyware. Its all down to the common user sense...

While my tech side agrees with you 100%, in practice your wishes are problematic. As has been demonstrated in this thread (and by you), just because someone is a top-notch photographer does not mean that he or she knows much about computers. Heck one of the "IT pros" that replied in this thread called his computer an "iMac Pro laptop" or something.

Oh, and in Windows, you don't even have to download something from an open source. Get online without a firewall- and BAM you're screwed. There are also soooo many (more) flaws in IE than Safari (which does have a few, but aren't highly targeted).

And as far as crashing. I havent had a blue screen error since Win
98 days...

I wish I had your luck.

Oh, and yes I have used an iMac at uni. I found It very slow (maybe
because its on a huge network?), loading CS was a pain... my 3 year
old pc feels faster in everything imac struggled in. I have no idea
what macheads talk about when they say pcs are slower.

You just compared two different computers without giving any specs whatsoever. You don't even know what iMac you were using. That is like saying my current computer is faster than say, an "Inspiron."

But the
biggest problem were the keyboard shortcuts (this is probably the
same with mac => pc). Anything with ctrl button is replaced with
apple key and I just cant get used to that even after 6 months of
using macs.

Because you can't get used to using A SINGLE DIFFERENT BUTTON, then Macs suck, right? How bout if you were using a Mac all your life and began using Windows?

----

I'm sorry, but you're post is full of so much FUD, it makes me sick! There have been sooo many uneducated responses in this thread it is pathetic, but you're the lucky one who finally broke the horse's back.

--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com

 

[pixelbender]

They still run too.

Me too. Funny thing is that anything newer dies in a few years!

I long for the old days of computing, when everything made wasn't built like caRp.
--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com

 

[pixelbender]

3. Is a mac of the same value realy faster and better than a pc?

No, they are more expensive in general. Pc's are better value.

PC's are a better value? FUD, FUD, FUD my friend. PC's may cost less, but that does not make them a better value.

Please do some Googling and you'll also find that in comparisons of Apple's newest Core Duo laptops vs. Dell's, that the "Apple Premium" wasn't much at all.

Also, in general Apple computers hold their price MUCH, MUCH more than their Windows counterparts. As far as VALUE goes, I'd say a computer than was worth 70% of its value in a few years is better than one worth 40%.

Oh, and since Apple's customer service, satisfaction, and warranty programs are consistently rated above EVERY SINGLE PC MAKER's out there, I'd say that adds some significant VALUE.

5.Does this Apeture program convert most raw files on the market?

No...its decent enough...not that cheap, but other 3rd party
programs support more files to date.

Doesn't Aperture cost $250? 150 for educational buyers? I don't find that expensive at all in the image software market.

To the OP- you're going to find folks on both sides of the fence. But please, don't take all of your advice from people here. This thread alone has a lot of misinformation in it. Don't go to Best Buy or CC either. Find yourself a computer expert who has used BOTH platforms and ask them for advice.

After all, you're in a photography forum, not a computer forum.
--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com

 

[pixelbender]

I've done some reading on monitors from MAC. It appears that their
monitors are not quite up to snuff when it comes to reliable
calibration. I've never heard anyone complain about this before, so
are some of the reviews incorrect, or are most using a different
monitor? This just didn't seem right based on that MAC is best
suited for this type of application.
Ken
--
Happy to Photograph!
Ken
http://kennyb.smugmug.com
http://www.pricelessdigitals.com

I believe the current iMacs' monitors do not calibrate as accurately as some "not-to-expensive" consumer monitors on the market. Also, pretty much any laptop display, regardless of compay, isn't going to be that great for color work. As always, do some research.

Apple's line of displays (stand alone, that is) are very good for LCDs in terms of color calibrations. Don't get me wrong, they aren't as good as those monitors that are four times as much, but then again those costs four times as much for a reason.

However, Dell has used the same panels as some of Apple's LCDs in their monitors, which can usually be had for much less and come with more input features. Looking for a 20" LCD? I recommend the 2005FPW which can be had for $400 or less. It has the same LCD panel as Apple's 20" that costs $799. I would stay away from Dell's newer 2007fpw, as their has been quality issues. Besides, why pay more when you can have a great color calibration LCD for a decent price (the newer Dell model's only advantage is that it has component imput at 20", I believe).

Lastly, since I'm a stickler, it is Mac, NOT MAC. Would it be annoying if I type WINDOWS instead of Windows or Win everytime? Especially since MAC is a tech term that describes physical network IDs stuff.

--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com

 

[pixelbender]

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Let me try to answer it more accurately, although some points are personal preference and can be disputed:

1. Can you network a mac to a pc computer and share files?

YES! OS X (the Mac's operating sytem) can see and write to Windows harddrives without any problem or extra software (with the EXEPTION that OS X can NOT write to NTFS partions). To write to NTFS partitions from OS X, you'll need extra software. Can't OS X setup a samba share that is seen by Windows? Anyone help me out with this?

Any type of "server" or FTP setup generally can be used with both OS X and Windows without any extra software (that isn't free, such as an FTP client).

2. When one does buy a mac how many other programs come with it
like word, outlook ect. or similar.

It is similar to what comes with any Windows computer (you get the mail client, the basic word processor, etc) except:

With OS X, you get iLife. iLife includes Garageband, iPhoto, iWeb, iMovie, iDVD, and iTunes.

With Windows you usually get a bunch of trial software that actually slows down the computer, and for best results should be removed upon purchase (which can be a pain).

You weren't expecting Office with the Mac, were you? You don't get Office with any PC, unless you are paying for it! Which, btw, Microsoft Office is available for both Windows and OS X (and actually has more features on OS X).

3. Is a mac of the same value realy faster and better than a pc?

Did you mean a Mac at the same price point? Now that Macs sport the same processors as their Windows counterparts, you'll find that generally the Windows computers will have a slightly faster processor in them at any given price point.

HOWEVER, please look for my posts elsewhere in this thread that describe how a Mac is a better VALUE.

Better than a PC? I won't answer that subjective question just yet.

4. If and when comunicating with other people via email or the
internet that have pc is it a problem?

No, not at all. An email is an email, a picture is a picture, a word document is a word document.

5.Does this Apeture program convert most raw files on the market?

Yes, it will convert most of the mainstream higher-end DSLRs' RAW files on the market. I do not know all the ones it is compatible with, and I highly suggest you head over to http://www.apple.com/aperture to read up and find out for yourself.

6. How user friendly is a mac?

In general, OS X (and the hardware features of Macs such as iSights, etc) are designed to be more user friendly than Windows. A significant benefit when going with Apple is that they design the hardware and the software (OS X and other progs).

I suggest you go to an Apple Store and play around with the computers, or perhaps the Apple section at your local CompUSA. It is my personal belief (based upon being a Windows user/tech since 1995 and a Mac user/tech since 2000) that Macs are a much better user experience. Ask some people who have "switched" and spent some time with OS X, and they'll tell you they love it so much more!

8. Can one customise the mac opperating system like I can with
windows?

To a certain extent. Colors, desktop images, screen savers, etc of course you can. A more specific question would be easier to answer.

A reply from someone who has gone from PC to Mac will be apreciated

As I said, I've been a power user and a certified tech for Windows and IBM-compatible PCs since about 1995, and for Apple products since about 2000. I've used both at home, and both in the workplace (in graphic design for promotional products), and I can't tell you how much more happy you'll be with a Mac.

I convert people all the time, and they always thank me.

Now don't get me wrong, there are more programs out there for Windows than OS X, but in general if the same program isn't available on OS X, then there is going to be an alternative. For photographers, you're probably not going to find this a problem at all (with the exception that Photoshop has not been ported to the new intel Macs. It will run on them, but will do so slower until the next versions of Photoshop are released).

There will be some quirks going from Windows to OS X, but then again it is the same the other way around. Fords and Bentleys are different but they both accomplish the same thing, but with the Mac as a Bentley you're going to enjoy it so much more.

--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com

 

[AussiePhil]

Comments and answers inline,

My other posts might indicate a pure PC bias but i like to think it more of a balance to the ever enthusiastic Mac user.

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Let me try to
answer it more accurately, although some points are personal
preference and can be disputed:

As can both side of the argument, balance is important

1. Can you network a mac to a pc computer and share files?

YES! OS X (the Mac's operating sytem) can see and write to Windows
harddrives without any problem or extra software (with the EXEPTION
that OS X can NOT write to NTFS partions). To write to NTFS
partitions from OS X, you'll need extra software. Can't OS X setup
a samba share that is seen by Windows? Anyone help me out with
this?

Not being able to write to an NTFS partition may be a deal breaker for some techhead but most won't even need this.

IF OSX can have samba share then Windows should be able to write to it, hopefully Apple have made Samba easy as it is usually a pain for general use.

2. When one does buy a mac how many other programs come with it
like word, outlook ect. or similar.

It is similar to what comes with any Windows computer (you get the
mail client, the basic word processor, etc) except:

With OS X, you get iLife. iLife includes Garageband, iPhoto, iWeb,
iMovie, iDVD, and iTunes.
With Windows you usually get a bunch of trial software that
actually slows down the computer, and for best results should be
removed upon purchase (which can be a pain).

Windows does NOT have a bunch of trial software, various OEM vendors may choose to install trial software but it is unfair to say Windows ships with trial software.

3. Is a mac of the same value realy faster and better than a pc?

Did you mean a Mac at the same price point? Now that Macs sport
the same processors as their Windows counterparts, you'll find that
generally the Windows computers will have a slightly faster
processor in them at any given price point.

HOWEVER, please look for my posts elsewhere in this thread that
describe how a Mac is a better VALUE.

Any number a Vendors will provide excellent service as will your local computer shop most times as well, your other threads touch on a lot of intangible benefits that are ultimately hard to put a value on. If the Mac is so good with no problem software and does not break down then what use is a great service desk....

4. If and when comunicating with other people via email or the
internet that have pc is it a problem?

No, not at all. An email is an email, a picture is a picture, a
word document is a word document.

5.Does this Apeture program convert most raw files on the market?

Yes, it will convert most of the mainstream higher-end DSLRs' RAW
files on the market. I do not know all the ones it is compatible
with, and I highly suggest you head over to
http://www.apple.com/aperture to read up and find out for yourself.

6. How user friendly is a mac?

In general, OS X (and the hardware features of Macs such as
iSights, etc) are designed to be more user friendly than Windows.
A significant benefit when going with Apple is that they design the
hardware and the software (OS X and other progs).

Vista is definately going to hurt the Apple OS.. personally i have found the MS interface easier to use.
This is again a personal thing.

I suggest you go to an Apple Store and play around with the
computers, or perhaps the Apple section at your local CompUSA. It
is my personal belief (based upon being a Windows user/tech since
1995 and a Mac user/tech since 2000) that Macs are a much better
user experience. Ask some people who have "switched" and spent
some time with OS X, and they'll tell you they love it so much more!

Now the suggestion to actually go into an Apple store is about the best thing that's been said by anyone including myself.. go and find out what YOU prefer.

8. Can one customise the mac opperating system like I can with
windows?

To a certain extent. Colors, desktop images, screen savers, etc of
course you can. A more specific question would be easier to answer.

A reply from someone who has gone from PC to Mac will be apreciated

As I said, I've been a power user and a certified tech for Windows
and IBM-compatible PCs since about 1995, and for Apple products
since about 2000. I've used both at home, and both in the
workplace (in graphic design for promotional products), and I can't
tell you how much more happy you'll be with a Mac.

I convert people all the time, and they always thank me.

Now don't get me wrong, there are more programs out there for
Windows than OS X, but in general if the same program isn't
available on OS X, then there is going to be an alternative. For
photographers, you're probably not going to find this a problem at
all (with the exception that Photoshop has not been ported to the
new intel Macs. It will run on them, but will do so slower until
the next versions of Photoshop are released).

There will be some quirks going from Windows to OS X, but then
again it is the same the other way around. Fords and Bentleys are
different but they both accomplish the same thing, but with the Mac
as a Bentley you're going to enjoy it so much more.

--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com

--
Cheers and best wishes
Phil
Galleries at
http://photos.incanberra.biz/main.php

 

[pixelbender]

Not being able to write to an NTFS partition may be a deal breaker
for some techhead but most won't even need this.
IF OSX can have samba share then Windows, should be able to write to
it, hopefully Apple have made Samba easy as it is usually a pain
for general use.

While I have not used Samba prior myself, I just set it up. Literally, LITERALLY took less than 20 seconds.

I talked about NTFS because it IS relevant to the non-"techhead" as you put it. If the Windows install on a PC is done correctly (by that I mean allowing for more safety and support for larger files) then it will be installed on an NTFS partition. I'm not currently up to snuff on what Dell formats theirs as, can anyone point it out?

Windows does NOT have a bunch of trial software, various OEM
vendors may choose to install trial software but it is unfair to
say Windows ships with trial software.

You are correct. I was not clear when I spoke. The problem with just Windows (without any OEM intervention) is that it is going to be a prime target for trouble. Please don't tell me when you reinstall Windows (haha because the machine is running slow) that you don't install AVG, ZoneAlarm, and AdAware (or equivelents)?

However, since there is a greater chance that the OP will buy from a national retailer than otherwise, chances are this will be an issue.

Any number a Vendors will provide excellent service as will your
local computer shop most times as well, your other threads touch on
a lot of intangible benefits that are ultimately hard to put a
value on. If the Mac is so good with no problem software and does
not break down then what use is a great service desk....

What use is a great "service desk"? Well for one during the first 90 days you have complimentary phone support for EVERYTHING including things like "I don't know how to run this program." I don't even know what Dell's current support is in terms of basic software help, I do know I've dealt with both Apple and Dell on many occasions and I'd rather talk to Apple ANY DAY OF THE WEEK than someone I can't understand and who has no knowledge over at Dell. What I just wrote has nothing to do with hardware failures.

I do not know the hardware failure rates between Apple and national PC retailers, but I DO KNOW their customer service rates as read from PC Magazine and the like.

Also, think of it as INSURANCE! You know how much people spend on insurance in their lifetimes? If I can buy two computers and the only differing factor is "insurance", why would I not want what is better?

And when you bring up the "local computer store".... man I spend more money on local businesses than anyone I know. BUT, I do know that you are going to pay MORE for local service and support (and probably MORE for the computer if you purchase it from them). Plus, when you buy from Apple, if you ever need help with anything (software or hardware) Apple not only has their own HUGE support forums on their website, but there are many Apple forums out there with knowledgable users.

It will be harder for the OP to find online why his "ATI x300 All in Wonder Edition XT won't work with this ASUS T879Ty64++2A v.1 motherboard running Intel's t6300e processor" won't work than it would be to figure out "can I put this video card into a 2Ghz iMac?" Sometimes simplicity is a great thing.

Vista is definately going to hurt the Apple OS.. personally i have
found the MS interface easier to use.
This is again a personal thing.

Aside from personal tastes, I would suggest you go checkout many of the respectable large tech sites online that continually talk about how Windows Vista will be just catching up to Apple's OS X 10.4 "Tiger" that has been out for some time in terms of actual features. There is a good chance Apple may have their next operating system out before Microsoft releases one that is catching up to the current.

Heck, most of the features that were touted as the best in Vista such as WinFS have been dropped from development. Vista appears to be nothing more than XP with graphics bolted on and a new DirectX system (thats the positives, I won't talk about the negs).

Again, this information is based on widely available reviews and opinions of industry experts, not my personal feelings. To say that Vista will "hurt" OS X is absurd.

Now the suggestion to actually go into an Apple store is about the
best thing that's been said by anyone including myself.. go and
find out what YOU prefer.

Amen. Or in the case you can't, ask someone who's used BOTH platforms extensively (such as myself

I tried to answer each question by itself objectively. Then, at the end I gave more of my personal reasons why I would purchase a Mac. I believe that my extensive experience with both platforms allows me to make a pretty fair conclusion for the OP. After all, this isn't a freaking fanboy war this is trying to help out a fellow photographer.

OP, ask some more folks who've used both platforms. I think you'l find that they generally agree with what I've said.

--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com