IMac Vs. PC...

Digital Matt · Jul 20, 2006

LWW said:
Not every feature no, but all uniform commands between the two programs will be the same.

LWW

And this differs from PCs how? CTRL+V, CTRL+C, and CTRL+X work in 99% of programs, as well as many other shortcut key combinations like CTRL+A, CTRL+P, CTRL+S, etc... I'm an avid shortcut user, and I use them in all software that I use.

thebeginning · Jul 20, 2006

Digital Matt said:
And this differs from PCs how? CTRL+V, CTRL+C, and CTRL+X work in 99% of programs, as well as many other shortcut key combinations like CTRL+A, CTRL+P, CTRL+S, etc... I'm an avid shortcut user, and I use them in all software that I use.

hmm i never thought of the actual keys...now that i think about it i use those constantly.

usayit · Jul 20, 2006

:shock: I should think so, but i bet your billed looked like my telepone number tho

Actually, I rarely buy any expensive items new or at full price... I have a knack for finding things at a good deal and a lot of patience.

My Ibook was purchased coming off lease through a friends company about 1.5 years ago for $500. I had last used MAC about 6-7 years prior and wanted to check out the mac os x before jumping in. I still use it to process 8mp raw images while on the road. This is an Ibook... low end laptop.. not a power book.

My G5 dual 1.8 with 2 gb of memory purchased through haggling with a store manager at a CompUSA about 8 months ago. Cost... $1200 with 3 year apple care. I haggled them down from $1700.. brand new it was $2200+. I was waiting for the new Intel based Macs to hit the market and force retail stores to sell their demos.

Looking for parts and upgrades for Mac. DO NOT go to apple store... freakin expensive. 2gb upgrade was $600!!!!! I got my memory upgraded from macsales.com for $200 for 2x1gb sticks.

Not looking to go full blown high end workstation? go with Mac mini or Imac which are just as price competitive as any Dell. Everyone I've talked to are pretty happy with either.... the iMac is really neat as it really clears up the clutter in and around your desk (LCD display built in).

Looking for storage for your images? Do go with firewire 400 or if you can afford it 800. Firewire rocks ... unlike USB which robs resources from the machine, firewire has its own processor this can sustain better performance in a practical use. I know someone who is into Video editing on a Mac running firewire 800 1TB (1000GB) mirrored/striped. I have two acomdata 250gb firewire 400 for my storage.

I did the same with my scanner and ink jet. Epson 2200 for $400 brand new (old stock) which was $700 when it first hit the market. I waited for the R1800 and R2400 to hit the shelves then negotiated. You'd be surprised what you can negotiate at even "regular" retail stores... its just most assume that the price is non-negtiable and don't bother to even ask.

Same is true for my camera equipment... rarely paid full price for anything....

This brings up a good point. Since the new Intel Macs are hitting the market (seems to be selling pretty well), I bet you can find G5 workstations real cheap now. Just have to patient and look hard enough. On top of that, current versions of software, including photoshop, will be totally supported on the G5 chipset.

usayit · Jul 20, 2006

Digital Matt said:
And this differs from PCs how? CTRL+V, CTRL+C, and CTRL+X work in 99% of programs, as well as many other shortcut key combinations like CTRL+A, CTRL+P, CTRL+S, etc... I'm an avid shortcut user, and I use them in all software that I use.

on a PC...
CTRL-C, CTRL-X, and CTRL-V

same as

Apple-C, Apple-X, and Apple-V

Most of the shortcuts between photoshop on Windows is the same/similar to Mac OS X.

Digital Matt · Jul 20, 2006

usayit said:
on a PC...
CTRL-C, CTRL-X, and CTRL-V

same as

Apple-C, Apple-X, and Apple-V

Most of the shortcuts between photoshop on Windows is the same/similar to Mac OS X.

I was pointing that out to refute the statement by LWW that Macs are more "uniform" between programs.

Jeepnut28 · Jul 20, 2006

ok. i found an Imac G5 on Apple.com for $1k

Unimaxium · Jul 20, 2006

Ok I guess I better chime in here.

I'm personally a big mac-head. I prefer the OS to Windows because I find it more intuitive and better laid out. That said, when switching to a mac for the first time many people think the opposite because they are so used to the paradigms that windows uses. There's always a learning curve when switching OSes, whether you're going from mac to windows, windows to mac, windows to linux, or whatever. I prefer how the filesystem is laid out on the macs, because I find it a lot easier to navigate through your hard drive. You rarely find files that are buried more than 11 directories deep on your HD, and anything that you're likely to need access to on a regular basis should only be a couple clicks away. Your applications are all in your Applications folder, your pictures can all go in your pictures folder, your music in your music folder, etc. Unless, of course, you want to put them somewhere else, which is no problem. You can also make "smart folders" that automatically gather files from anywhere on your hard drive based on whatever kind of search criteria you set for it. I've never liked the whole "start menu" idea personally, because to me it feels like windows is trying to hide the programs from you and only give you a little shortcut to it in the menu.

Sure, macs are a bit less customizable than PCs, both in terms of hardware and software. But again, a lot of people think that macs can't be upgraded or changed at all, and that's simply untrue. For some reason a lot of people seem to compare the upgradability of a custom-built PC box to that of the iMac, which is unfair. iMacs are made to be an all-in-one compact computer that is oriented towards the consumer market, and not a professional workstation (but that's not to say they're not good machines; they really are nice, powerful computers). Powermacs are much more upgradable (although admittedly still less so than a PC). You can't replace the motherboard, but there's plenty of space for extra drives, video cards, PCI cards, not to mention RAM of course (which you can upgrade in any machine), and sometimes the CPU. Macs come out of the box as very good systems, especially since they started upgrading to the intel chips. That won't help you a lot down the road, when your computer is old and slow compared to what's out on the market now, but it certainly won't slow down any as it ages. My father up until just a few years ago used to use a Powermac 9600 from 1997 as his main computer for all the professional audio production he does for a local radio station. My point is: although macs aren't the most upgradable, in my opinion they remain great machines for a good long time.

This brings us to the issue of the new intel chips. Some people seem to be confused on this issue. Here's what's going on. For a long time Apple has used Motorola and IBM to manufacture chips for them. Chips such as the G4 and the G5 (motorola and IBM, respectively). When they G5 first came out, Apple promised that they would have 3Ghz chips in their powermacs within a year. However, IBM never delivered on this. Their G5 chips just couldn't handle it (mainly because of overheating issues). Apple also could find no way to fit a G5 chip into a laptop, which they really wanted to do. So they thought a bit, and made the decision to make the switch and use intel chips in upcoming machines. These intel chips are the same kinds of chips that Windows runs on, as opposed to the PPC chips like the G5. Now they have faster computers and can fit better processors into smaller computers like the Macbook and Mac Mini. But when it comes to software this means a few things. Primarily, software that was made for G4 / G5 chips won't work natively on the new intel chips. Developers need to recompile their software to work at full speed on the new chips. But that doesn't mean that older software won't work at all on the new computers; it means that it will have to run though the OS's built-in emulation software called Rosetta. And from what I've heard, it does a pretty good job. It's not going to be as fast as a G5, but it's not going to be horrendously slow either. Why this information is especially important for photographers though is that Photoshop as of now has not been upgraded to work natively with the new chips. Adobe says that they will not release an intel-compatible version until they ship their next version, CS3, in the beginning of next year. But once it comes out, I'm sure it will be quite fast.

So far Apple has upgraded all of their machines with intel chips except for the Powermac and the XServe. Rumorists suspect that Apple will use either the new Core 2 Duo chips in them or some new Xeon processors intel is expected to announce soon in the machines. All the other machines are in their first version since the upgrades, and some people don't like to buy stuff right when it's released because of the possibility of hardware bugs that don't get worked out until later revisions. I've heard some people having issues with the MacBooks and MacBook Pros, but from what I've heard I think the iMacs are pretty stable. With the exception of the issue with Photoshop not having native Intel support yet, now would be a fine time to go with a new iMac. Unless you just don't click with the OS or you just feel like you have to upgrade your motherboard I think you will be good with a mac.

Ok, I've been typing for a while, and I have no idea how long this post has gotten, so I'm going to stop here. I think I've said everything I wanted to say.

Also, I forgot to mention, that now that macs have intel chips in them, they are in fact capable of running windows natively as well. You can use either Apple's Boot Camp software or Parallels Desktop software to run Windows alongside Mac OS on your computer. So now when you buy a mac, you're not stuck to the OS if you really don't like it (but how could you not love it? ;-) )

usayit · Jul 20, 2006

Oh another thing about a machine for photoediting ( mac or pc).... I'd rather have a workstation that has slower processors and a lot of memory than a workstation with fast processors and less memory. My experience is that processing images in photoshop tend to be memory bound rather than processor bound.

and if you are truely a nut.... make sure your workspace (on disk) is on fast storage... perhaps two disks that a stripped.

Unimaxium · Jul 20, 2006

Mohain said:
A G5 will always be faster than an iMac.

Well that's not true

iMacs had G5s in them until they were replaced by faster intel chips.
And the powermac G5s are soon to be replaced by intel versions as well. In a couple years I'm sure you'll see iMacs that are faster than the fastest G5 you can get.

Mohain · Jul 21, 2006

Unimaxium said:
Well that's not true
iMacs had G5s in them until they were replaced by faster intel chips.
And the powermac G5s are soon to be replaced by intel versions as well. In a couple years I'm sure you'll see iMacs that are faster than the fastest G5 you can get.

OK, I phrased that wrong but I'm sure you understand what I mean (incase you don't I meant the iMacs wont ever ber as powerful as thier 'big brother 'tower'' equiv.)

The thing I forget, and my wife had to point it out to me, is that I always build all my own PCs from scratch, buy all the components separately and upgrade each compenent (as much as I can) as I feel it's needed. Most people don't

I can't stand the thought of having to buy a whole new system everytime I feel the need for an upgrade.

I agree the Mac OSX is a great OS for everyday use and it's much more stable than OS9 it's just that at work, with all the different hardware we have attached to our macs (DAT back-up, flatbed scanners, film scanners, servers, printers, drives, etc etc) it seems that everytime there is a 1.4.x OS update something doens't work and the updates seem to be monthly. And permissions ... arrghhhh ......

Anyway, I'm getting dragged into that conversation that I said i wouldn't :mrgreen:

If I were the OP I would not by an iMac RIGHT NOW.If you want one I'd suggest waiting some months. I'd be interested to hear what path you chose and why.

Cheers,

Mohain

Digital Matt · Jul 21, 2006

You rarely find files that are buried more than 11 directories deep on your HD, and anything that you're likely to need access to on a regular basis should only be a couple clicks away.

I don't see this as being any different in Windows. I don't have to search 11 directories deep to find anything, and all the stuff I need to access regularly is on the desktop, or in a folder on the desktop.

Your applications are all in your Applications folder, your pictures can all go in your pictures folder, your music in your music folder, etc. Unless, of course, you want to put them somewhere else, which is no problem.

On a pc, your applications are all in the folder called "Program Files", unless otherwise specified. Guess what? There are also folders called My Pictures, and My Music.

I've never liked the whole "start menu" idea personally, because to me it feels like windows is trying to hide the programs from you and only give you a little shortcut to it in the menu.

The programs aren't hidden at all. They can be accessed by clicking 1 button (start) You can also have links to them on the desktop, or the quick launch bar, and they are never further away then the Program Files folder anyway. I don't see the problem here.

So far, I haven't heard anyone mention something great about a Mac, that a PC doesn't have. It just comes down to what you want. Both platforms are equally capable and customizable.

Arch · Jul 21, 2006

I wont go into the whole debate thing.... but this is basically my opinion.....

I was a total mac head..... doing what i do for a living.... you've got to know mac stuff...... most business in the graphics and design world use macs.... they are the prefered industry tool for many businesses......
... and i do love macs..... they are a triumph of design..... apple have won design awards for innovation and style..... and they were so impressive against the horrible grey box of the pc...... and lets not forget.... Its said that microsoft got the idea for 'windows' from apple mac who were already using the browsing system.

So if i had plenty of money to spend i'd get a new mac and everything to go with it...... but....... i havent.....

I used to be amused by 'designers' using pc's and running corel draw..... (i still find corel draw a joke..... but i wont go there)..... but now.... I use Pc's.... why?

Simple...... they are cheeper..... you can throw a few quid at some RAM and it will keep PS happy..... you can update software without having to update your OS..... Im typing this on a 250 quid second hand pc..... sitting next to it is a 1'000 quid G3 mac..... with dust on it..... why?..... its crap thats why!.... fair enough its an old model..... they weren't ment to last too long.... but its barely older than this pc (which has had a few upgrades but nothing special).....
I was using it for design work a few years ago..... then i switched to the pc cuz it was faster..... so i was just using it then for internet only..... then.... what do apple do?...... they bring out quicktime 7..... ONLY compatable with OSX..... i was using OS9..... so i couldn't watch movie trailers or anything (which i love doing)...... but i could download it for my pc..... so apple have screwed there own customers ..... i read a few forums of people saying apple never look after thier exsisting customers..... they always want you to spend more and 'upgrade' your equipment...... and i have to agree.

So now i never use my mac at all...... but that doesn't mean i l'm a PC fan... i just use whatever can give me what i want..... and if i had the money a G5 mac would be better suited to me..... i prefered the OS and the shortcuts.... but as it is now..... i own 3 pc's and they do the job..... and if they dont i upgrade them without much expense.

Mohain · Jul 21, 2006

One upon a time the Mac was the industry standard for DTP & graphics work, what with their built-in powerful video cards and maths co-processors and what not. But that's just not the case any more. Fonts aren't even an issue anymore (you can use open fonts on both platforms). I think it just comes down to personal pref and cost.

ksmattfish · Jul 21, 2006

It's like Kodak vs Fuji, Canon vs Nikon, Ford vs Chevy, Republicans vs Democrats: they are pretty much the same, do the same things, and the biggest differences are in the ad campaigns.

markc · Jul 21, 2006

In my opinion, it's Nikon vs. Canon. One doesn't have a clear-cut lead over the other. It's all about how it feels to you.

Personally, I was too much of a gear-head to like Macs in the past, but I might like OS X now that it's based on BSD. I hated Windows until Windows 2000 too. It was way too unstable. I much prefered Linux and the command line, but still used Windows because of the games and some programs that Linux didn't have. If Linux had the same software availability, I'd be using it full-time. I'm not crazy enough to tell people it's the best OS and that everyone should use it, though. It's just what works best for me.