PC Vs MAC ?

[Axleuk]

OK this thread is a kind of spin off from this one http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/sho...?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 ?

[DannyRaphael]

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~

[Gary Richardson]

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.

[MBChamberlain]

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

[JustChecking]

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)...

[Chip Hildreth]

...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

[sfxphil]

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

[Swampy]

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.

[Gary Richardson]

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.

[gijohn]

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.

[cardmnal]

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.

[Gary Richardson]

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.

[Swampy]

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/lud1...sborough.shtml
------

[winwintoo]

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.



Margaret

[gijohn]

Originally Posted by Gary Richardson

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>

[Gary Richardson]

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.

[Swampy]

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.

[Gary Richardson]

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.

[sansuci]

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

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/ma.../keynotes.html

http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/ma...0/panther.html

[gijohn]

Originally Posted by Gary Richardson

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.

[cardmnal]

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.

[gijohn]

Originally Posted by cardmnal

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.

[kedespo]

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.

[gijohn]

Originally Posted by kedespo

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.

[kedespo]

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

[winwintoo]

Give it a rest already.

Margaret

[gijohn]

Originally Posted by winwintoo

Give it a rest already.

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

[kedespo]

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

[gijohn]

Originally Posted by kedespo

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.

[Swampy]

Originally Posted by kedespo

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.