OK this thread is a kind of spin off from this one http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9439&page=2 , but how many people use Macs and how many use PC's ?

For those of you that have made the switch from PC to Mac, how long did it take you to get to grips with the OS and know your way around the system and how well do you feel the Mac is supported in general ?

I understand that for certain areas the Mac is better suited ie: Graphics and the printing world, but does that alone warrant a switch ?

A number of years ago I switched from Mac to PC. (I was working for Microsoft at the time, so I had little choice.)

Moving from Mac OS to Windows was a pretty big significant transition. Lots more under the covers tuning knobs with Windows. Mac OS was considerably easier to use.

I would expect that today the transition from Windows to Mac OS would not be that difficult. Once you get past terminology differences such as "shortcut" in Windows = "alias" in Mac OS, there's a lot of functional overlap. Where do you think MSFT got the ideas for creating Windows? :)

Regarding the so-called Mac superiority over Windows from the graphics perspective: From what I've been told, that gap is very narrow (if it exists at all) these days and it's a function of the application software, not the OS. This is one of those topics can evolve into a holy war of debate. Personally I don't care.

Another consideraton: If you've made a significant investment in software, beware that some software companies don't care if you're migrating from one platform to another. If you want the Mac version of Program X, you gotta buy it -- even if you already own the PC version. This would be something to investigate in advance to get a better feel for what the true costs of migration are.

My 2¢...

~Danny~

Macs are fine till something goes wrong. Prices for Mac parts are considerably higher than those for PCs. Engineers trained in Macs are also much harder to find than those trained in PCs. Lastly, Macs are expensive in comparison to PCs for equivalent processing power. All in all, there really is not too much of a case for Macs, as can be seen by the fact that most people buy PCs.

Not only are they expensive to replace, but also to buy. (without software like Photoshop included) I built the best grpahics system I could at Apple and found that it would run me about $6,600. I built a comparable system (actually quite a bit faster) for PC for only 2300, and that includes a custom case with a cool dragon on the side. I could add SCSI raid to it and still come out under $4,000. That would leave me with $2,600 to spend on software. (CS Suite here I come!)

Michael

i use PC at home, and at the faculty i use PC's, SGI's, and SPARK...

i'd like to say that i really hate PC architecture (at the low level), and that Intel got one more "enemy" when they postponed release of 64bits...

but what else can you do when they're cheapest (thus most spread)...

...what they all said.

For my personal machines I've migrated back and forth between PCs and Macs; my first PC was an 8088 (PC/XT) and my first Mac was a IIcx. It was on the IIcx that I learned Photoshop... 2.1 I think.

I have always enjoyed USING a Mac more but I strongly prefer MAINTAINING a PC. Mac support issues, while not so frequent, are often just plain intractable; I can fix a PC, usually in short order and since computers only break at really bad times, I now use PCs. Macs are kind of pricey. I don't think Macs are any better than PCs for graphics or pre-press; it's the software apps that matter.

My partner, a graphic designer, had been strictly a Mac user until two years ago when we started our business and now she uses a PC... because that's what we had. She says PCs are just as easy to use for design and print production now that she's used to them.

I gotta say that I just hate the Windows OS because it is so bloated and crosswired but I have to admit that XP doesn't screw up nearly as much as its predecessors. Mozilla Firefox has made it much more tolerable, IE is crap, always has been.

When people ask me about PCs versus Macs I always give the same answer... PCs didn't win the desktop wars because they were better systems...

Chip

I have been using Mac more than 15 years after a disastrous start on an Apricot computer ( remember those )

I do everything from Photo retouching to spread sheets and can honestly say i have never had a hardware problem in all of the 12 Macs i have owned. Yes they used to be more expensive to buy and peripherals are more expensive. But i am happy to pay more for the extra productivity i gain. Since OSX Macs are even more stable and since installing Panther i have not had a single crash. Never in all my years on the web has a single virus or spy ware / trojan horse ever invaded my network. I would never advise people to switch to Mac's in fact i am against it. The more people who use Macs the more virus will be written for them.

My 2 cents :nod:

I've had my Mac G-5 since last July and not ONE crash, or freeze. My computer is on 16-18 hours a day. I generally push the envelope when working in applications (everything from multimedia to online games, word processing, heavy prepress and graphics usage). Again... NOT ONE CRASH in eight months!!!

MBChamberlain.. How can you claim "I built a comparable system (actually quite a bit faster)..." No way you can say a PC running can run faster than a Mac G-5 dualie with a 64 bit processor. Look at the test results from the speed test forum. Macs rule.

In 15 years of using Macs, I've only had ONE that required bench work (technician) service. It was under warranty, and took one day to get the CPU replaced at a full service Apple store.

Every external device I've ever plugged into a Mac has worked RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX! True plug and play. From scanners to midi keyboard, firewire enabled camera to my Canon ProShot 1(I love how iPhoto just sees it and starts downloading pictures).

The beauty of Apple is that they build the hardware AND the operating system that drives that hardware. And, from the beginning, Apple set standards for software developers so that their software complies with the OS's architecture and EVERYTHING JUST WORKS (and works the same way from program to program).

Expensive? Maybe, but you get what your pay for. Comparing a Mac to a PC is like comparing a Mercedes to a Ford. The Ford will get you from point A to point B, but the Mercedes will do it with style and dependability.

If you think a Mercedes is reliable, you've obviously never owned one. I have, and they're no more reliable than a Ford, they just have better dealers, so the perception is that they're more reliable. Pretty much like Macs.

I've owned a few Mercedes cars (still own a 280SL) over the years and have found them very reliable. I'll take one over a Ford (and Mac over a PC) any day. To each his own I guess.

I learned to use photoshop and a lot of other graphics programs on both Mac and Windows systems. Neither system has been better than the other in terms of ease of use or in quality. I agree with everyone who has said it is the software and not the OS.

In terms of the OS, since XP came around it has improved the windows operating system, in terms of stability, quite a bit. Yes the windows system is huge but so are todays hard drives so that is not really an issue anymore.

Seeing as how replacing all my software would be more exensive then replacing my computer, I'll be sicking with my windows OS.

I did'nt say I'd prefer a Ford to a Mercedes, just that they were no more reliable. I'm not trying to criticise people's choice of car (or computer), merely pointing out that we often have a perception of reliability that is not bourne out by the statistical evidence. MTBF (mean time between failures) is not significantly different between Fords and Mercedes, (or PCs and Macs). Personal experience of either can not really be taken into account, as you may have owned atypical examples. I know we all judge by personal experience, but to be fair to either manufacturer, its the statistical evidence that is the more accurate indicator.

I'm just going to quote from PC Magazine - October 2004....
------
According to the most recent survey of Consumer Reports magazine readers, Apple ranked best for reliability for desktop computers, followed in order by Dell, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard. Apple also received the highest rating for laptop reliability, with Toshiba, Sony, and IBM following suit.

Apple also ranked at the top for technical support with both desktop and laptop users, according to Consumer Reports readers. Following (in order) were Gateway and Dell with desktop support and IBM and Gateway for laptop users.

http://www.infotoday.com/linkup/lud100104-goldsborough.shtml
------

My son and his family have a Mustang car, a cute 4X4 truck that they can all ride in, but if they need to haul anything they have to borrow the father-in-law's real 1/2 ton and in winter if my son takes the 4X4 out of town on business, my daughther-in-law borrows my old Dodge Colt for running errands because it's more stable on ice than the Mustang is (although the Mustang makes a better fashion statement at the beach in the summertime)

I use a Mac PowerBook for surfing the web and email and most of my computering (I do a lot since I'm a retired computer programmer) and I can usually (but not always) find software to do what I want to do on the Mac. When I can't find software to accomplish what I want on the Mac, I switch to my WindowsXP laptop and use that instead. I'm thinking of getting a 3rd laptop to run Linux on so I have an even broader range of software available.

I've go lots of software for both computers - some of it works on both - and lots of peripherals - mouses, keyboards, printers, scanners etc. they all work on both. Both computers connect wirelessly to the internet without a hitch using the same router.

I've bought lots of Macs and some of them were lemons so I returned them immediately to the store - my rule is if it doesn't work out of the box, it ain't never gonna work - and while I was still employed, I had several different Windows based machines. I'm a programmer so I'm likely to do things that annoy the computer and I can't honestly say that the Macs were less annoyed than the Windows machines.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a computer is a tool. It's meant to do a job. No one computer is meant to do EVERY job. Use the one that does the jobs that you need done and let other folks use the computer that does the jobs that they need done and lets all try to get along.

Trying to argue that one computer is better than any other is like trying to tell my son's family what kind of car(s) to buy - unless they buy a whole fleet, there will still be times when they will have to borrow or rent extra wheels.

:happy: :happy: :happy:

Margaret

its the statistical evidence that is the more accurate indicator.

ok ..... I'll stick with the statistical evidence and enjoy my computer of choice. <grin>

I was never arguing that one was better than the other. Quite the opposite in fact. I just stated that there was little or no qauntifiable difference in the reliability of Macs over PCs, and that therefore it should'nt be used as a reason to buy one in preference to the other.

As Margaret quite rightly says, horses for courses.

Just as an addition. Margaret, I worked in electronics/computer repair for about 20 yrs. 90%+ of all electronics equipment fails in either the 1st couple of weeks, or the last weeks of their projected lives. A graph of this is often known as "the bathtub of faults" because of its charecteristic shape.

Gary, Consumer's Report, the independent research company, must have found something to quantify their findings. Sorry, if this differs from your experience, but I'm just quoting the big guns.

Hi Swampy,

My own statistics are based on in house data, supplied to me by a friend who works in the workshop of one of the UK’s largest computer retailers and repairers (I used to work for them). Because the data is confidential and he would be liable to disciplinary action, I won’t say which.

It is based on a comparison of sales returns versus returns for repair. When dates of sale and repair are factored in, a table of MTBF for various manufacturers was compiled.

This was based on over a million sales, so the data is statistically significant.

As I said before, Macs were one of the most reliable, but no more so than several PC manufacturers.

What was significant, was the difference in out of warranty repair costs. These were significantly higher in Macs, due almost entirely to the cost of spares (one of the disadvantages of a monopoly of supply).

Even if we take your figures as correct, and Macs are more reliable, it still does’nt offset the increased cost of repair if things go wrong (and we can’t assume they won’t).

I think that’s really all I have to say on this topic, back to the real interest retouching.

Hi,

I made the switch from PC to MAC just over a year ago and I have never looked back. Actually looking back....I have found that I have converted a staggering 10 people to dump their PCs and replace it with a MAC....all the while not owning a single MAC share :eek:

My arguments (I think) are simple:

You really have to ask yourself what you use your computer for (and sadly) be harsh when answering the question.

True: PCs (especially) desktops can be cheaper but only when you compare power per US$ spent. Also true that if you buy a desktop then the screen quality really depends on what monitor you get; the sky is the limit.

Clearly more people have PCs then MACs but hey people don't go around claiming that Ford makes better cars than Ferrari or that a sony 727 camera is better than a canon rebel (at least I did not compare it to the 1Ds). The point comes to this: is the money that you pay worth the product that you buy?

I find (and have somehow converted the converts) that people mostly use their computer for emails; internet; multimedia and when you go professional (in terms of media) for repro production etc.

In terms of home usage (please pay attention): THE MAC IS FAR AHEAD!!!!

The package that Apple offers today (in terms of the mac mini, iMac and iBook/Powerbook) is far ahead of any equivalent PC. The trick really is the MAC OS. Panther was a gain leap ahead for Apple. Bundled with it you get iLife. The only real addition you may require (if you transfer a lot between the MAC and PC) is Microsoft X or 2004. That completes your package and what a package it is.

Look at iPhoto. There is simply no equivalent in PC. Bundle it with .mac and you can publish to the web; print books with Apple (which are very reasonable) and create albums which take normal people a life time. If you work with music look no further than garage band; movies: imovie and idvd and to store your songs you of course have iTunes. If you bought this off the shelf (and it comes with every MAC - preinstalled) its US$69!!!!

Wish to set up a home network; its as easy as pie. Sure they Airport express may cost US$29 more but look at what you are getting. Stream your music; broadband; and attach a printer.

With home users (really just playing around) how much power do they need and then again how much do they utilise. People fall easily in the trap of buying the best because it is marketed so efficiently.

Wait till Tiger (new OS upgrade) comes out before 1st Half of 2005. 1st Half of 2005? In the words of Steve Jobs: "Longhorn is a long time away" This is not a marketing gimmick but a fact. It has a built in search tool integrated into the OS. So does PC you say. Well if you want to see what it can really do - have a look at www.apple.com or better yet

to make up your mind I would suggest that you see Steve's keynote speech and decide for yourself.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf05/

The sum is that MAC OS is far more stable than the PC. In all my time of using my computer, I have used the equivalent of ctrl-alt-del ONCE! How many PC users can say that?

If its raw power per us$ that you need - but the PC. If its ease of use; amazing free applications (see quick silver) and a beautiful product that does what it says buy a MAC.

I have always felt that a few extra dollars is worth the peace of mind. Some people don't agree.

Hope this helps.

Best wishes,

Sansuci

p.s. I just see someone has used the ford analogy in another thread. sorry!

As for reliability I certainly and absolutely disagree! If you only talk of reliablity i.e. does the machine work then maybe. If its under warranty apple will replace it. But what concerns me more is day to day working reliability. Panther that way is FAR SUPERIOR!

The reason why Panther is better is because it is based on a UNIX platform. Also it has embedded in it: Pre-emptive Multitasking; Multithreading; Symmetrical multiprocessing; Dynamic memory allocation; and Memory processing. Space too short to explain all of this - you can google it. However have a look at these articles:

http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/10/03/keynotes.html

http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2003/10/10/panther.html

Even if we take your figures as correct, and Macs are more reliable, it still does’nt offset the increased cost of repair if things go wrong (and we can’t assume they won’t).

Well of course it does Gary. Wouldn't it depend on how many times the hardware would need repaired?? Are you saying a twice repaired Mac (out of warranty) would be more expensive than a PC repaired 8 times? (and who knows what is being repaired - I'm sure that would be a factor)

Since switching to Mac computers in 1993, I guess I've been incredibly lucky or fortunate. I've owned a Centris 610, then a 7200, next an 8600, a G4/450, G4 1gig dual and currently a G5 2gig dual. All used in a professional environment. I've had 1 (ONE) instance for repair - a bad video card. As far as reliability - I'd be a tough sell to go to a PC.

Sansuci, as a user of both pcs and Macs I can't help but point out a flaw with your argument (no I'm not nit-picking).

The first and most obvious difference between the 2 machines is cost. You argue that it is worth it because Apple offers such a great software package. I will argue that the software package that comes with a Mac, which is much like Windows in as much as you get it if you need/want it or not, is not worth the $1000.00+ extra it cost to get an otherwise equally powerful machine. I can have the entire Adobe Creative Suite for the extra cost of those programs.

The camera comparison was interesting. Ask any photographer and they will tell you the same thing. It's not the cost of the camera it's the person looking through the view finder that determins it's value.

The first and most obvious difference between the 2 machines is cost.

I for one would be very curious to hear how much money some computer users from here have invested in their "box" of choice (forget the monitor - just the CPU).

Over the years I've learned more than a few times that MOST OF THE TIME you get what you pay for.

A very good read for anyone that wants to argue Mac vs PC.
<http://macvspc.info/>

I copied the text below from this web site:
<http://www.mackido.com/Myths/cost.html>



Most buyers naively only look at the initial purchase price of a computer and think that is "it". But the cost of a computer is its lifetime costs (not just the initial cost). Lets break down all the different aspects of computer costs individually -


Initial Purchase Price
This is the actual initial cost to buy a computer. In general Macs cost less than name brand PC's and offer much more performance/value at that cost.

You can still buy chop-shop garage clones for PC's for less than Macs (but not by much), but you get much less. Of course you can also bargain shop for Macs and pick up refurbished machines (with warranty's) or discontinued models for less than these chop-shop machines. When you start averaging for value - warranty, reliability, usability, Hardware you get with the Mac (like SCSI, ADB, etc.), software you get with Macs, then even retail Macs come out as the far better deal.

PC users also forget to normalize for the Macs higher performance - for example a PowerPC can dramatically outperform the Pentiums, but people buy based on MHz, and don't realize that the Mac outclasses the Pentium. To buy the equivalent Mac they could buy a much slower MHz machine. (See links on performance).Once costs are normalized, the initial costs of Mac purchases are much less. Some PC users are penny smart but pound foolish - they save a few bucks up front (or think they do), and don't ever realize how much they cost themselves down the line.

For more on the actual Initial Purchase Price (and examples) - Initial Purchase Costs

Installation and expansion
Once you've bought a machine, you get to bring it home and plug it in.

You can still buy chop-shop garage clones for PC's for less than Macs, but you would be getting much less. When you start averaging for value - warranty, reliability, usability, hardware you get with the Mac (like SCSI, ADB, etc.), Software you get with Macs, then usually the Macs come out the much better deal. PC users also forget to normalize for the Macs higher performance - for example a PowerPC can dramatically outperform the Pentiums, but people buy based on MHz, and don't realize that the Mac outclasses the Pentium. To buy the equivalent Mac they could buy a much slower MHz machine. (See links on performance) Once normalized the initial costs of Mac purchases are much less. Some PC users are penny smart but pound foolish - they save a few bucks up front (or think they do), and don't ever realize how much they cost themselves down the line.

For more on Installation issues - Costs to install

Productivity / Ease of Use
Machines real value is not measured in how much it costs, but in how much the user can use it, and how quickly and easily.

Every study ever done has concluded that the Mac was easier to use, and that its users were more productive. Which is the real measure of a computers value.

There was one biased study by MS that concluded that Windows 95 was a little better than a Mac, but it was so blatantly crooked it was funny. IBM, Apple and independent parties jumped on MS's stacking of the study. See [DARKSIDE : FLAWED STUDY] for a laugh.

Many other examinations have been done on how many applications a computer user actually uses on their machines, or what they are using their machines for. Mac users, on average, are using more applications than PC users. Mac users are often using more cutting edge capabilities and pushing the envelope. Mac users are using their machines more. Which all makes perfect sense when you remember that this is the computer that is the easiest to use.

Read my User Interface pages for more information on why the Mac is superior in productivity and ease of use.

For more information on Productivity - [REFERENCE : EASE OF USE].

Maintenance (Support) Costs and expansion
Computer costs not only are the purchase price, but also all of the day to day costs to keep the machine up and working, upgraded and updated.

For more on Installation issues - Costs to maintain

Peripherals
The is an old myth that Macs use special peripherals that cost more than the PC counterparts. But the Mac has almost always supported the same peripherals as PC's. Sometimes Mac variants have more features - like Apple monitors support resolution sensing and higher scan rates (for clearer images) - but Macs still work with PC's peripherals as well.

For more on Peripherals - Peripheral Costs

Conclusions
Even if the PC's did cost less initially - which is a stretch - that would not alleviate all the other factors that contribute to a computers cost. Macs are still easier to install, easier to maintain, and easier to use - which is a lot of costs (time and money). Macs are easier to expand, and are often far more expandable (and pre-expanded) as compared to PC's. Macs offer more value, have higher customer satisfaction and higher reliability than PC's. If you have any doubt, then check out - [REFERENCE : COSTS] for all the studies and testamonials of people that beleive that Macs just cost less.

PC users also forget to normalize for the Macs higher performance - for example a PowerPC can dramatically outperform the Pentiums, but people buy based on MHz, and don't realize that the Mac outclasses the Pentium. To buy the equivalent Mac they could buy a much slower MHz machine. (See links on performance).Once costs are normalized, the initial costs of Mac purchases are much less. Some PC users are penny smart but pound foolish - they save a few bucks up front (or think they do), and don't ever realize how much they cost themselves down the line.

I'm always frustrated when trying to convince a PC users that his (her) 32 bit chipped 3Mhz machine is quite a bit slower than my 2 Mhz, dual processor, 64 bit machine. Start throwing some PS lighting effects, gaussian blurs, mathematical functions ..... not even close.

I would also like to see a side by side comparison of two similar systems (one Mac & one PC any brand) I'd love to see this "$1000.00" difference documented.

Ed

Give it a rest already.

Margaret

Give it a rest already.

I'm confused ... is the topic mislabeled in some way?? Should we be talking about something else?

I'm not trying to anger anyone, and I think I'm staying "on topic". I use Mac's at home, PC's at work. I have well over 10 years exp. on both systems. Macs are, hands down, more productive machines for me. (they allow me to be more productive) Less tinkering to get done what needs to be done.
I hear many non-mac people use the "Macs are more expensive" line without ever truly comparing the two. I'm talking about total cost of ownership, for the life of your machine. To use the car comparison yet again. Most people look at resale value , repair history, repair cost, gas milage, safety...etc. Yet, when buying a computer, that same person uses the line ,"more people use PC's than Macs" and "They're cheaper" ,they must be better.
McDonalds is also the most popular eating establishment. It's not that expensive. Do they have the best food....?

This topic will never have a true winner. (back to cars) Start a new topic in a car forum and ask who uses a Ford and who uses a Chevy and see what kind a war starts there.

Ed

This topic will never have a true winner.

Couldn't agree more. Which begs the questions - why even discuss the subject. About like putting a conservative and liberal into a locked room for a day. Yowsa.

I have more respect for folks who gather information, test/use both systems and then make a decision ... be it Mac or PC. At least be a conscientious buyer.

I would also like to see a side by side comparison of two similar systems (one Mac & one PC any brand) I'd love to see this "$1000.00" difference documented.

Ed
There is a speed test forum here on Retouch Pro and the G5 Macs have won hands down.

Happy Apple user since 1979 or 1980 (I think)
Happy Mac user since 1984.

PC User since 1981 with a TRaSh 80 (48K RAM!!!), a cassette deck to load VisiCalc and a game called Space Warp, a modem that looked like the opposite end of a telephone, and 2 of those 5.25" floppies (they really were floppy) and a dot matrix printer.

I've never spent one day since without at least one Mac or PC in my home at the same time.

----

I enjoy working on a mac and I'm more productive because I'm comfortable and familiar with the user interface.
I'm accustomed to the way the screen looks, the way the mouse looks and acts, the file system, the operating system, the shortcuts, etc.

I have built many PC's for quite a few pepole and I have no problems with PC's or even Microsoft.
About 15 years ago I worked at a place centered around Corel Draw on PC's.
The people used to jokingly say that I work all day on my PC but I go home and relax while working on my mac.

Apple II --> Commodore 64 --> random PCs to now
Looking to buy a G5. Tired of dealing with PCs.

I ordered my new G5 2.3Ghz yesterday. Now I just have to wait for the deleviry van to arive. I can't wait.

Just have to jump in on this one. Although I prefer Macs (have used both), I don't think the issue is which OS is better, easier to use or has the most software written for it. sfxphil*hit the nail on the head when talking about viruses. Most of the complaints I hear from PC users might involve system crashes but more often it's how much data, work, time and money they lost when attacked. There's also the issue of security/privacy. I have owned MACs since they first one came out (can't even remember-IIC?), and have never had one virus or any security problems. So to me, the extra cost for MACs is worth it, it's the best protection I could have.

My two cts !

1) I voted PC because the poll's subject reads What do you use PC or Mac ? And have been using PCs since they started being commonly used at offices here in Argentina. Around 1985. Was always curious about Macs for all the usual comments about its being great at handling graphics and the advantage of the hardware being built for the OS or vice versa (?). So when I decided to buy a home computer searched for prices of both PCs and Macs.
So ... my first personally owned computer was an Epson PC, can't remember the model except that I felt like a new rich with all of its 2MB RAM and a 40MB HD !! It came with DOS 2 or 3 and Windows 2.0 :hat: :lmao:

2) Obviously can't offer any comparison comments regading PC vs Mac, except perhaps the price factor which probably accounts for the high percentage of PC users vs Mac users. Also have noticed that there is a greater percentage of service and performance satisfaction expressed by Mac users than PC users. That could also be a result of the smaller proportion of voters from each sector. (just a question here, statistics are not my field at all :dead: )

So I voted PC.

PC at home

Mac at work (only because I have to) and just NOW we're FINALLY switching from OS9 to x. :dead:

Obviously. I prefer the PC.

Worked with mac most of my life. Use my PC for administrative stuff and my mac for the creative work.

Bill

I assume most here are aware by now that Apple is abandoning the PowerPC in favor of Intel's superior microprocessors. If not, read announcement here:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

By most accounts, the ease-of-use factor and GUI interface gaps have narrowed considerably, especially since the coming of Windows XP. In many areas, WinXP is surprisingly given an edge. Many agree it's now a toss up.

With Apple moving to Intel, and now presumably equal user interfaces, does it get down to basically a question of cost vs. reliability (ignoring the emotional factor :o: )? Clearly PCs cost less, and just as clearly Mac's have proven to be the most reliable.

- Kurt

I wonder if adobe will just support photoshop on the the intel platform. Will they stop developing upgrades on the mac side? OS-X runs on top of the unix shell so maybe it will be transparent to the end user and current aps will run native on the new platform.

I have been using a Mac for about ten years. The new OS X operating systems have eliminated all of the freezing and crashing that the old OS had. I love it. I have never had to have any of my Macs serviced. I also use a PC at work, so I am familiar with both. The PCs have gone out several times causing great problems on the job. I think that Macs are great.

Cathy

Bill - that's a good question. I would imagine Adobe will continue to support existing PowerPC platforms for some time - but the future definitely has Intel written all over it. Without G5 powering Macs, I can't see Adobe or any large software company continuing to invest in PowerPC app development for the long haul. Hopefully apps like Photoshop are indeed insulated from the metal by the OS (as one would expect), so they can migrate transparently. It all depends on Adobe's implementation.

- Kurt

I thought I throw this in as a third option. http://www.bauhaussoftware.com/products_nomad_LP.php

yes, seen that before, deadants. very sweet. one question, though... what o/s are they using for that or is it a proprietary thing? it says intel processor, but nothing about the o/s.

Craig

Hi Craig,
good question. I looked all over their site but could not find anything about the o/s. So I sent an email to their support department. I will let you know when I get a reply.

deadants

HI craig,
I got a reply from Bauhaus Mirage.

The OS is WinXP. Thanks for your interest! :)

--
Regards, Steve
____________________
Steve Bowie -- Voice (416) 633-0191
Product Specialist -- Bauhaus Software
steve@bauhaussoftware.com

thanks deadants!

Craig

I have both; first PC was an XT (sister and bother in-law worked for IBM) in 80-81, first mac was Mac plus, in 1986. I remember the sticker shock of buying my first apple laserwriter postscript printer at a cool 5k! ouch! PCs are okay, except for the (lack of) plug and play as far as peripherals are concerned. I've stayed with macs through the years, and a few years ago added a pc laptop to test my website. Yes, PCs are just OK, and I'm aware that many more people have PCs over mac, mainly I believe due to cost factors, and if I have to use one I will, but I love my mac! :D
~Nancy~ :D

Nancy,

I always hear Mac users say, "I love my Mac". It's just the "natural" response. :grin:

BTW.. I love mine too.

Hi all,
my two cents. The plus for pcs is a slightly lower cost. I almost switched to PC. Fortunately I got a new job that is PC only.
I am now cured of ever wanting to own a PC for me. I have more reboots and font issues on two PCs than I have on two macs at home (I have a huge library of fonts at home). There are times when the PC just languishes (end task?) and waits to be beaten by my frustration. Sure, my macs crash, but they don't just hang in the air for an eternity (Except for Canvas 8, a real dog) with no information for me to decied what to do.
I think my day to day experience on a mac has been far brighter for nearly a decade than my 4 months with a PC. If I had that PC at home, uhm it would end up in the dumpster.
Programs. Plainly for my type of work (graphic arts/fonts/retouching), I have 4 programs that are not ever going to PC (FontStudio, Live Picture, DesignStudio and LetraStudio).
I have a great G-3 that runs a dual boot of 8.1 and 9.2 and its from 1998. I use it all the time, it is my muscle computer. The CD Rom died a couple years ago, uhm a $00.00 replacement cost. I also have a nice flat panel G-5 Imac that allows me to use CS, but also PhotoPaint (Allumes "Creative Suit“ which was bundled with a bunch of stuff for $150.00)
Honestly, I think it is great that there are PCs, and I think they work better for more people (hence 94% marketshare) than a Mac. For me and what I do I'm sticking with Mac. I don't mind having the best looking desktop around! I think it also boils down to this: What you first learn on is your most comfortable to use, until you get some sort of revelation. I love Freehand, and it is my choice of vector graphics (plus it has the best Hypenation-Justification table for high quality typography of any desktop program I have used, it rivals old proprietary progams here!) over Illustrator, but the market wins out and I know Illustrator better now than Freehand because I use it everyday.
So go out and buy your PC, be happy and don't call asking for help! I won't either!

God Bless,
Rodi :cat:

Rodi
I love Freehand too, but am forced to use Illustrator sometimes and it just drives me up a wall! FreeHand is so "up front" for the basic stuff that graphic designers do.

For example, I've gone crazy trying to figure out how to do double curve (button) text in Illustrator. Button text is a staple in the graphics field yet Adobe has ignored any improvments to this task for years! I attended an Apple/Adobe free graphics seminar a couple years ago and during a session break I asked Terry White (one of the Adobe reps) how he approached this task in Illustrator. He spent the entire break (about 15 minutes) trying to figure out how it was done! In FH it is soooo easy...type the first line of text (that will curve over a circle), hit return, type the second line of text (that curves under a circle), set for centered justification, select both the text block and the circle and "attach to path"! Bingo! Button text that is still editable, and where the upper and lower text can each be separately adjusted to join the path on ascenders or descenders, kerning and tracking are still available. This is the way FH has done it for 20 years and Adobe Illustrator is still stuck on copy/paste in front, select, drag through yada yada.

Another feature in FreeHand that is essential is the ability to apply half tone line screening to any individual element. There is a separate palette for this to adjust screen angle and frequency with a choice of line or dot pattern. Last month I had a project that called for a 5 spot color job to be reduced to one color for silkscreen imprint. I could define the colors using tints of black then setting the line screen for different effects and the larger dot patterns necessary for silkscreen work. The final imprint came out beautifully! With Illustrator you can setup a line screen but it works globally on the entire document. One setting for all the elements. Arrrgh

I'm currently working on a large map project that calls for a some single elements (certian counties on the map) to have a tinted fill and a solid stroke of a single CMYK color. Easy enough in FreeHand. Create the CMYK and add it to the swathes, then go to the "tint palette" and select a percentage of the color and drag it to the color swatches then apply the fill and stroke. In Illustrator it's easy enough to create a tint of a PMS color and add it to your swatches, but not so with CMYK colors since it uses the transparancy palette to generate the tint then you have to select the element and then go to the appearance palette, duplicate the fill sub layer and make the duplicate a tint. Very confusing. I've converted the entire map to an AI Legacy file and opened that in Freehand so I could get the job done in a timely manner.

I know this rant has little to do with PC/MAC. You'd have the same issues on either platform, but I sometimes wonder if the programming gurus at Adobe even have a clue about the basic graphics features that designers need. They seem to spend time and effort of "neat" bells and whistles (extrusions for one) and ignore the mundane like button text, tint and line screen control.

Off my soap box...

Banging away on a PC but I'm hoping to migrate to Mac early next year!

Some may find this interesting.

I own a computer service/repair shop. We keep pretty good records of what we work on. When I go back through the books about 6% of the computers we work on are Macs. Since Macs are used by about 5% of the population it shows that Macs have problems just as much as PCs. The problems are different though.

Regarding Mac parts being more expensive. They don't always have to be. Mac people get suckered into buying RAM at high prices because it is for their Mac. Same with harddrives.

I personally can't see any real gain in switching to a Mac. It all comes down to software. The hardware is not different anymore. Next month Macs will start shipping with Intel Dual Core processors. Same architecture that AMD has been smoking with their Dual Core processors. So there is no hardware difference between the two.

Once I'm in CS2 what does it matter if I'm on a Mac or PC? It doesn't. Have any of you tried to use the new Quickbooks on a Mac? The 2006 version for PCs is heads and shoulders about the Mac version. Its all these things that you have to take into consideration.

It all comes down to preference. If I was a Mac user I would not want the world to switch. Mac users have security through obscurity. With 6% of the computers coming into my shop being Macs I don't buy the "Macs are more stable" rhetoric.

For the Record. PC users do not have to get spyware and viruses. I don't and I use a computer as much as anyone I know.

-B

I'm Mac all the way.

At home and at work I use a G5.

As a rule, the majority of companies in the UK doing graphic design/advertising run a Mac studio (well as far as I have seen). I agree that most of it is preference, as once you're in the program it doesn't really matter.

Though my friend uses a mac at work and a PC at home for the same job.

Guess I'm just set in my ways.

my first computer was a mac so that's what i learned on. my next was a pc and very easy learning curve from one to the other. now i teach on a mac and own pc personally. i was in the market for a new computer and stayed very alert to all the pros and cons for a year. decided on another pc. the main reason is that i am a very serious retoucher (and teach photoshop at a college)and there are limitations on the mac os for the photoshop program. every time i find a new one, i write it in te book i teach from for all that ask. sure, apple has their packaging together but did you know that you CANNOT print larger than a 90" print from a mac os? that's significant if you want to print panoramas or a banner! you have to but an extra divice! some of the other things are pretty minor but helps in workflow. i also agree with someone else who posted that if you have software for one platform, you're kinda stuck unless you sold your old system with all the wonderful software as a package deal and started fresh. kinda like switching from nikon to canon and letting the nikon lenses go where they are useful.

i am new to this group so i really hope to reply to this successfully.
good thoughts,
carolyn

www.carolyncoffey.com

if you want to print panoramas or a banner! you have to but an extra divice! some of the other things are pretty minor but helps in workflow.

I beg to differ. My nephew runs large format Epson printers doing glisee and he prints 8, 10, 12 feet and larger canvases every day running 6 Macs and 4 Epson printers using Adobe PhotoShop CS2. No aditional hardware or software necessary.

I use both - the Mac for graphics and music production, the Pc for office stuff, internet et al.

The reason - the Mac works better for me. With music production software the Mac stuff is always released earlier - one of the programmers for ProTools told me that the PC version required half a million extra lines of coding. That extra 1/2 million surprised me a bit........... I just hope theyre better at catching typos than I am! The last Mac crash I had was in 2001 (I ran out of RAM) and because it is never online it will never get a virus (fingers crossed, natch)

I use the PC online because the internet is written for PCs. I dont care if the PC gets sick - it wont stop me making an income.

Just as I wouldnt use my music software for graphics, nor would I use a PC for music or graphics or a Mac for the internet. Just too much hassle............

PCs are cheap enough - the main worry is deskspace - with 2 Macs, a PC, an iBook and a couple of printers my dining room looks likes a modern equivalent of Tutenkamun's tomb.

I beg to differ. My nephew runs large format Epson printers doing glisee and he prints 8, 10, 12 feet and larger canvases every day running 6 Macs and 4 Epson printers using Adobe PhotoShop CS2. No aditional hardware or software necessary.


i have indeed tried to contact you personally to ask how your nepew does this without extra software but no response. below is a response straight from epson. i can override this on a pc but not mac. i am not a pc snob and work on both platforms on a daily basis. i just believe everyone should be informed of the truth so they can make the best decision for themselves. mac snobs seem to want to sugar coat the mac problems. not saying pcs don't have their more than fair share, just want the facts correct.-c

Epson standard driver has a page length limitation of 90.5 inches.
Illustrator CS and above support "tiling", this way you can create a custom page half the size of the total length and make sure you check the "Tile Full Page" option. If you need more info check with the application manufacturer.
Attache is a document for your reference.

(Embedded image moved to file: pic26299.jpg)

Should you require further assistance with this issue, please use the "Reply With History" option, including your previous e-mail with your new request. If you have a different technical support issue, please submit another E-form via our website (http://www.epson.com), and we will respond in a timely manner. Thank you again for contacting Epson.

James D
EPSON Professional Graphics Support Team

without extra software and no response.

Austin

I thought I did reply to your message Sunday?

Mike says that yes, the Epson driver is limited to 90.5 inches when printing via OSX CUPS/Epson printer driver. He said he works around it (some kind of hack) by making sure there is white "canvas" area at each end of the printing area then he puts one white pixel in each corner of the white canvas area before printing and cutting to size.

I have to say that Mike is and has been a printing guru for over 20 years. He is also a computer whiz kid who *totally* understands how to hack things to make them work. He told me he has the Epson RIP, but doesn't use it.

Well, a lot have been saying about this poll, and of course, every one love's his machine, no creative can work on a Machine that doesn't inspire him to work.

I do think money it's a considerable reason to buy a PC, but everything depends on what you like.

I switched to Mac on 1998, cauze at office everyone uses Mac, and they have a great performance, but of course we have technicians, programers and of course, designers that teach each other about the system, and it's a little easier and faster than most PC's.

But really, today, we can find the same Photoshop on Mac and PC, so, we can buy any.

I grew up in a family of PC nerds.

My first computer was a Windows-based PC (this was before there was the hard floppy disk - when we had the bigger all-black flexible ones that were read in a big obtrusive usually tan box). Then with the pack I moved over to 95, then 98, then 2000/with NT, then XP, the XP Service Pack 2, with the inevitable 'blue screen of death' between everything click of the mouse.

Windoes has so many damnn holes and backdoors in it, its really quite ridiculous. When I learned that someone could hijack Windows through Media Player; I had to end the madness!

I left the sorry excuse for an OS, and crossed over to the beautiful architecture of a Unix-based Apple, Mac OS X. Quite possible the most advanced operating system on the planet.

Imagine if Windows manufactured cars. What would the world be like?

Well, walking out of the grocery store and seeing people attempt to throw their vehicle off a bridge should not alarm you, as this would happen if Windows manufactured cars.

Should you press the 'unlock' button on your remote-entry, and the car turns on, only to then shut down. You needn't stress, as this would be a common occurrence if Windows manufactured cars.

While driving on the highway, if you find your car suddenly freeze with no explanation -- get out and kick yourself for not installing Windows CE (Car Edition) Service Pack 2, and remember this is only normal if Windows manufactured cars.

And while simply washing your car one day, if you happen to notices your car discarding its core parts out onto the street, Its probably because you forgot to update your, Norton, Spyware Doctor, McAfee, and Trojan Doctor definitions again and your car now needs to be quarantined.

What a headache that would be, the only benefit that Windows-based cars would bring, is that if you were late to work because of car trouble, at least you could count on your boss being late too.

But please do not switch over to Apple Mac's. Nooooo. Like *sfxphil* said...the more of you who switch over to the the 'intelligent' side, the more viruses they will write for us.

In fairness to the PC - As devotedly in love I am with my Mac, I still have a well-oiled PC sitting across from it. You kinda need it since the the market is dominate by the ignorance. :tongue: Im kidding...no but seriously.

I've been using macs and pc's in tandem for over 15 years now. In that time I can honestly say I've spent considerably more time repairing, maintaining, swearing, frustrating, crying and shouting at pc's than I have with macs. I'm a freelance designer by trade and consistently work for clients on both platforms. I don't know if there''s a word for it, call it ambidextrous if you will, but I'd say I'm about as comfortable working on PC's in Photoshop as I am on a Mac. At home I have a Dual processor G5 and a Custom built Dual Processor PC of equivalent spec. So, the question is, if I was asked to retouch an image, create a document, browse the internet, watch a film, download images, listen to / create music or edit video, which would I choose? The Mac. Hands down, every time. No questions, no arguments, no wavering, no hesitation. Why? The Mac just lets me get on with it. It's the ultimate creative tool. What Apple have done is create an environment where you don't have to think about what's powering the software. They've made it just, well, eiser to just BE creative. I know this sounds trite, but Macs just FEEL more intuitive. The OS is inherently more stable. Everything just seems to fit together. You can tell how much thought has gone into it. Everyhing Apple has done over the past fifteen years has driven the computer age forwards. No other company has come even close to being as innovative as Apple have. They haven't done it to make money, they've done it for the passion. They've made so many gambles in the past. Everyone thought they were crazy when they brought out the iMac. No floppy drive? Insane! They knew it was the right thing to do and they did it. The iPod. What were they thinking? a portable music device! who could have imagined it would have taken off. Apple have never been afraid of making the difficult choice and doing the right thing and have always, stayed focused on making the best products they can with the materials to hand. irrespective of cost. Take the change to intel. How many companies would make that gammble. They knew there future was on a different platform and they took it. When was the last time Microsoft did something momentous. The X-box? Rubbish. They saw how much money was being made in games consoles and bullied there way onto the market. they don't innovate, they emulate. Windows XP? please. Who are they kidding. "OK guys, what we need to do, is create an OS that looks exactly like OS X. Except make it blue. And move the close window buttons to the right of the windows.". "But Bill, won't they notice?". "Who cares, they'll buy whatever I tell them to. WooHaaaahaaahaa!!!!!".
Yes they're cheap and boy do they feel it. The competition is so fierce that everything goes to the lowest bidder. OK, they're cheaper, but where does the quality go. Apple insist on quality, which is why you pay the premium. Most people can live with that. I can't. On average I upgrade my PC's every six months. My Mac's I repace every three years. You do the math.

Have you noticed ...

On a Windows platform - almost everything is opposite the Mac. Just like * InfiniteMonkey* stated. Microsoft does not innovate, they emulate.

Mac, all desktop icons alight to the right - PC, moved theirs to the left.

Mac, task bar is on the top - PC, emulated but moved it to the bottom.

Mac, "close,maximize,minimize" are grouped on the left - PC, they put it on the right.

Mac, "close,maximize,minimize" are circles - PC, of course you know they made squares.

Mac, when scrolling, both "scroll up + scroll down" buttons are next to each other - PC, ungrouped them.

Mac, scroll bar is rounded - PC, is squared.

Mac, has trash - PC, has recycle bin (whatever that is).

Mac, calls it applications - PC, calls them programs.

**And have you seen Microsoft Windows Vista? Your new operating system will look so close to a Mac, you will forget you are on a PC, until of course it freezes or a popup from norton appears telling you, you have new definitions to download.**

Vista is the direct translation of a PC, trying to look like a Mac. Quite disgustingly really. Though Vista emulates Mac in looks, it never will in performance, will it? Oh well, you all will soon see. I have a copy of Vista so I know. It has its potential I will say, but its just a blatant copy of OS X.

One thing I do love about Microsoft though, is that they managed to create Office for Mac a much better and much more stable program for Macs, then it ever was for a PC. Kind of a shame though, how their program works better on our platform.

*Laughs* but seriously PCs have their glory moments too. I just don't know any!

For those of you that have made the switch from PC to Mac, how long did it take you to get to grips with the OS and know your way around the system and how well do you feel the Mac is supported in general ?

I understand that for certain areas the Mac is better suited ie: Graphics and the printing world, but does that alone warrant a switch ?

Questions:
1. I have always been fluent in both operating systems. My college education was strickly on Mac, my job in the industry was on a Mac. That being said, I have always had a PC at home, until I started my own business. I think Mac support is great! Ok... the operating system has had some issues and at times finding the software for my hardware can be a pain... But no one says WINDOWS is perfect either ;)

2. Switching... humm, that's a good question. It is a costly switch, however Mac's are made for graphics and power. I think the switch should be made depending on comfort level. If you have a PC and like how things are working, then leave well enough alone.

The Mac vs. PC issue is a constant in our home. My husband loves PC (but has only worked with PC). I love my Mac. No crashes, no viruses, and I love the interface.

My girlfriend has been saving up to by a mac for ages, shes in publishing and her company have just switched over to PC's. She was FURIOUS! She was looking to buy one of the new Mac Minis. After a bit of investigation we agreed that with a monitor and keyboard and mouse it would just be too much. She was distraught. I had a quick chat with her about what she ACTUALLy needed the machine for and decided to use my initiative. I went online, straight onto ebay. Found a G3 450mhz Mac with a 20" Apple CRT Studio Display, with keyboard and mouse. I paid £50, and the guy delivered it the next day. The only thing it needed was an upgraded hard drive (for itunes), £35.00 and some more memory to run OSX another £60.00. For £145.00 she had a system that was more than capable of handling anything she wanted to throw at it. I think it's very easy to get carried away with how fast technology is developing and loose track of what we actually need the technology to do. This is what I love about Macs. They just let you get on with the business of being creative. I'm sure at some stage in the near future, especially as apple have now swapped over to the Intel chip, the upgrades will no longer be compatible with her system, but even then, she'll still be able to use and enjoy her system. This is what I find so funny, people are so obsessed with getting the newest, fastest, shiniest, most expensive that they lose sight of what they actually need it for. I was happy retouching images on my Quadra 950, it was only the fact that my clients were all using the latest software that forced me to upgrade. I blame the software companies. I used to love Illustrator. I spent the first 5 years of my working life designing with it exclusively. I knew it inside out and back again. Now, with CS2, it's so bloated with unnecessaryware that it's virtually unuseable. When will they learn...
Sorry, Rant over.... Breath tim, Breath...

I think XP works better if you have it on it's best perfomance setting (which also gets rid of the godawful XP Look)
I've had no trouble running photoshop in XP and would never go for a MAC

I've been running a PC for 10-20 hr days doing heavy graphics work, 3D work, and heavy gaming for a long time. Windows has not crashed (BSOD) on me since I started using Win2000 and WinXP, that's about 6 years now.

Not only that, I dont run any full time anti virus programs, and I've never had a virus either (and I'm a HEAVY surfer). I just run an online scan every now and then to be sure.

The key is that I use quality components, and I take the time to maintain my OS. I find that most people keep their OS in dreadful shape. You have to clean and maintain your car to keep it in good condition, and the same can be said for any OS/computer.

Hi drisley,

I advise and moderate on a number of security forums, and am constantly appalled at the cavalier attitude that people take with their computer's security.

Running even frequent online scans is no substitute for a firewall and an updated installed Anti-Virus. You need some "real time" defences to keep you even remotely secure.

The fact that so far you have remained apparently infection free is no indication that you will remain so.

Believe me, you do not want to get some of the nastier infections that are floating about on the internet (unless of course you don't mind your computer becoming an expensive paperweight), as the cleansing process can often be long and arduous (if possible at all in some cases).

You would be well advised to get some on board protection installed.

Anyone that is considering a switch to a Mac may find this article from InfoWorld helpful.

Others will also find some interesting tidbits here---such as,
• Apple's remarks about Microsoft's Vista design
• the type of servers used by the military
• and the current pricing of the new Mac Pro

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/09/22/39FEbizmac_1.html

I've been running a PC for 10-20 hr days doing heavy graphics work, 3D work, and heavy gaming for a long time. Windows has not crashed (BSOD) on me since I started using Win2000 and WinXP, that's about 6 years now.

Not only that, I dont run any full time anti virus programs, and I've never had a virus either (and I'm a HEAVY surfer). I just run an online scan every now and then to be sure.

The key is that I use quality components, and I take the time to maintain my OS. I find that most people keep their OS in dreadful shape. You have to clean and maintain your car to keep it in good condition, and the same can be said for any OS/computer.
:eek: :eek: :eek:
I would do as Gary said, before your system gets trashed. Online scans can be fooled in to giving a false clean report. All this time somebody could have been happily running through your system, doing all kinds of illegal things.

And advertising on a forum that you don't have anything installed, is another bad idea :eek: