[TreesOfMyTime]

Originally Posted by Swampy

T. Paul...

If your major expense would be upgrading Adobe CS, Adobe has a cross grade option whereby you agree to distroy your PC copy and for the cost of shipping they send you the Mac version. It probably assumes you are running CS3.

Not so for me! I had just upgraded to Version 7 or CS (can't remember) on the PC for $179. Then I saw, and fell in love with an Imac and bought it.

To change from my new PC version to a Mac version, Adobe charged me another $179 AND the requirement that I destroy the PC version! I was not happy, but I had no choice, and I complied.

[Swampy]

Ack, Don! All said and done, you still got a deal if you are now up to CS3 which retails well $1800 for the Design package of CS3

[T Paul]

Well I'm taking the plunge! Ordered the Apple yesterday and talked to Adobe tonight about the cross-platform upgrade. That's really a sweet deal. It was the cost of having to purchase all new Mac software that was holding me back. Fingers crossed that all goes well!

[pixelzombie]

enjoy your new machine, and if you're into music you will truly enjoy garageband...

[rodsavant]

I hate for this to be my first post, but I felt compelled..

mac people will always tell you that macs are better.. Back in 2000-20003 when the mac was stuck at an ungodly slow speed, I was rendering video about two to three times faster than any mac. Usually mac folks are not as tech savvy as pc users. I have built all of my pcs using the latest PC chips and motherboards, and really enjoy the hands on experience of building something that is a mean workstation.

If you look at the old mac/pc debates, you will find that they often included debates about the CPU and speed of both platforms.. Most computer users who are well informed have always known that PCs had smoked macs. But to the brainwashed mac user, who really has no hands on experience and is just a user , they were easily fooled..

At some point they had to own up to the fact that their ridiculously slow macs were years behind PCs in terms of speed.. If you go on the AMD website, you will see how many movies are rendered and processed with the PC because of the speed.. movies like star wars and sin city..

I remember when musicians were like graphic artist and used to shun the PC.. Now they embrace the PC and more and more records are being made on them because of their superior performance and support for VST plugins and virtual instruments..

TRADITION has kept the graphic artist behind..

The CPU wars ended when APPLE PUT A PC CHIP INSIDE THEIR MACHINE!! Basically admitting that PCs were smoking fast they wanted to reap the benefits.. Now a nation of Mac users had to revise their arguments..

So what happened to the "macs are faster because of the power pc" debate? they got smoked and lost that one..

Now it's the OS. for someone who is not hands on about their OS I suppose macs would work better..

for power PC users, we have NO PROBLEM customizing our OS to be lean and fast.. That is part of the fun. the Mac OS does not allow the same kind of customization as a windows system.. For graphics and music, I do not care about the OS.. I care only about the software I'm using.

I have 8 computers networked because I am a musician.. 3 of them are macs. I have a powerbook and a G5 (that I use for final cut pro). I can tell you that there is not one mac that apple sells that is faster and smoother than any PC I have ever built.. An Asus motherboard with a top of the line AMD chip blows away any mac on the market.

Why buy a mac? If you can afford it, go ahead.. It gives an advantage in that I have the best of both worlds.. I can easily run OSX on my suped up PC.. works great.. But I like to designate certain computers to different tasks.. So I have a internet computer, graphics, and music..

Just so you know, I am not a MS supporter, I really don't care.. My point is, I'm really sick of these religiously overzealous mac heads giving false information.. You really can't go wrong with any computer.. You can be productive and have a machine that is smooth and wont' crash on you..

[pixelzombie]

apple switched to intel as IBM couldn't make a G5 chip run cool enough in a laptop which is a shame as it was much faster when it came to floating calculations which is why microsoft picked IBM chips for their Xbox..i have friends that have switched to a mac and they have told me that they should've done it long ago but some people don't listen to me and they have to find it out on their own...

[rodsavant]

MS used IBM because it was cost effective not because it was faster or better.

Any serious gamer knows that a suped up PC runs faster, with better graphics and performance, than any XBOX360 or PS3s... in fact, most of the chips used in consoles are OLD PC chips.. Do a search on Google for serious gaming computers.. Take a look at the specs..

When I want a smoking computer, I usually use a serious gaming machine as a guideline. There is no mac on the market that will beat a top of the line serious gaming machine.. You think Graphic artist and Musicians are serious about performance? These gaming geeks are no joke and have the most suped up computers..

[pixelzombie]

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquir...-for-the-xbox2

http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingre.../2003/11/61065

[rodsavant]

Dude:

"PC’s have historically had a clear and distinct advantage when it comes to hardware. The capabilities of a high end PC far outweighed the ability of a single chip cartridge plugged into a piece of hardware designed to read the proprietary media device. In the past two years the size of this gap has shrunk tremendously. Ignoring the PS2 and Gamecube for a moment, the Xbox is essentially a streamlined PC built specifically for gaming. With all of the OS overhead eliminated, a single set of drivers and hardware designed specifically for the product, the Xbox has fully utilized the power of the PC to become a console. While the graphic capabilities of a console will never match the fastest and most robust PC on the market, they now can perform at the same level as most PC’s that are readily available in Best Buy."

http://www.xbox365.com/news/zcomment...pZEuVFpRZEEJZv

This was the situation years back.. And that was what I was refering to when the mac was stuck at slower speeds..

and if you want to talk about MORE CURRENT:

Gamers love AMD

"If the FX57 was put into a system with a motherboard, video card, memory, etc as quality and as high performance as the processor itself is then....
The FX57 would literaly stomp the living crap out of an XBOX 360!"

"the xbox360's processor is a RISC chip, and runs more specialized instructions.

The FX57 is a CISC chip, which runs a much more vast library of instructions.

There are things that the FX57 can do that the xbox360 can't but not vice versa."


And, gaming consoles power gets old fast.. That is why, again, as I said, gaming PCs will always be faster..

[rodsavant]

Also, this proves my original point.. During those dark years, when Mac laptops lagged behind the rest of the PC world in speed, EVEN THEN religious mac addicts would still say buy a mac.. then give some false claim.. this was after years of insisting macs were just as fast, no faster than PCs.. all lies.. And you see, it works because Mac users were not as tech savvy..

Reason I brought up speed is, there was a time when all you saw in Mac magazines were speed tests.. Desperately trying to show Macs were as fast, or faster than PCs.. They were testing software written for macs against software ported over to PCs.. Those claims were false. Those speed arguments quickly went away as the Mac was stuck at such slow speeds.. I remember in our studio, we had NO CHOICE but to switch to AMD computers because of how long it would take to render on a MAC.

Now Macs are much faster.. But they are just using PC hardware. The difference in PC hardware and MAC hardware is not as big as a deal as some make it.. That is why Steve Jobs shifted and focused the argument on the OS instead of specific hardware issues.. many of the components found in a Mac are PC components such as the Drives, Graphic cards, and CPU..

And as been stated here before, a 1500 dollar PC will usually smoke a 2500 dollar mac. So why buy a Mac? If you like the OS buy it.. I've never found Windows to get in my way of accomplishing my tasks.. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any OS that handles all of your photo retouching needs.. I use Photoshop.. I care about the program not the OS..

[Swampy]

Rod, are you saying it boils down to speed and geekines? (how fast the chip is and how much do you want to tinker under the hood over clocking it etc.) I guess if you need speed for games or animation rendering etc. you'd go with what was fastest. For the average guy on the street who wants to surf the net, do some email, compose a letter, and do "normal" stuff, speed isn't an issue these days. It's all relative. Heck, I might have the very fastest PC in the world, but *I* can only type so fast and a silly nanosecond slow down in getting it off the printer doesn't matter to me.

As far as geekiness. Yeah, some guys like to build hot rods. They spend their waking hours tinkering under the hood. If that's important to you then, by all means, get a PC. The average guy on the street couldn't care less and is happy if all the "what makes it work" stuff just stays out of his way. I know there are geeks that just love to download and patch their OS every day and run virus scans and tweak all that stuff. People like me just don't want to have to do it every day, over and over and over and over.

>>>And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any OS that handles all of your photo retouching needs.. I use Photoshop..

Gee, from that statement one could infer that Photoshop doesn't run on a Mac. LOLOL

[rodsavant]

Swampy, I agree with all of your points. You are correct. What you said is what I have been saying since I was a kid using a PC AND a Mac.. I'm not sure how far you go back, but those SPEED arguments were in every Mac Addict magazine in the 90s.. and all I would say is what you said.. and of course upon further examination I learned they were all false claims anyway..

And as far as the Photoshop statement.. you took that the wrong way.. When people would tell me buy a Mac because of Photoshop I'd say what you just said, but using the PC as an example.. I'd say "gee, you would think Photoshop does not run on a PC.."

And excuse me for sounding a bit harsh. When I first starting recording music, and I bought my first audio work station at SAM ASH, the arrogant brainwashed Mac rep told me "no no, do not buy that program for PC.. the PC will NEVER DO MUSIC.." I said, "never? how can you say never? I'm sure it can.." He said, "never!!!"

Then not long after, every great music software was available on the PC.. and MORE.. the PC actually overtook the Mac in music.. and MOST SOFTWARE WAS RELEASED ON THE PC SIDE FIRST!!!!!! With many VST plugins being available ONLY ON PC.. I'd smirk as my Mac friends buy a PC just because I had sounds and software they could not run.. They'd buy a PC just to use as a virtual instrument because their mac could not do it..

[Swampy]

Rod

>>>I'm not sure how far you go back...

My first computer was an Atari 800 (1983) with a 300 baud coupler modem. I go back... I go waaaaay back! LOL

I had a wonderful step editor for the Atari ST. Loved that little program, can't find one like it today. It was so simple and all computer keyboard intensive (I'm not a keyboard artist!!! so entry from the computer keyboard was perfect for me). The Atari had a built in midi interface and I had a Roland with a grand organ voice. I programmed 6 tracks for the entire Messiah. We (the chorus and soloists) used those tracks for rehearsals. I could play back a single track (Tenors, Basses, Altos, Sopranos) for practice and drill. It was great. I find all the editing programs these days too "mousy" or too complex for my elementary musical skills. I just want to enter note by note C4q (middle C quarter note) from the wireless keyboard. LOL

[KR1156]

i put rhinestones on my mac....so mine is actually best.

[T Paul]

So what anti-virus programs do you recommend for the Mac?