macs r better?

voodoocat · Mar 27, 2004

Osmer_Toby said:
wow- excellent food for thought in all cases- thank you gentlemen.

here's how i see it at this point: given my 2k ceiling, i'm better off buying a pc laptop, especially since it will be dedicated almost exclusively to image editing. i don't play computer games, so at most i might be browsing the web or writing on it.

this logic sound sound?

I hope you plan on connecting it to a CRT monitor for image editing.

GerryDavid · Mar 27, 2004

Osmer_Toby said:
wow- excellent food for thought in all cases- thank you gentlemen.

here's how i see it at this point: given my 2k ceiling, i'm better off buying a pc laptop, especially since it will be dedicated almost exclusively to image editing. i don't play computer games, so at most i might be browsing the web or writing on it.

this logic sound sound?

Just a tip, instead of speinding $2k on a notebook, spend it on a desktop and get the same specs as a $4k notebook. When you upgrade later on, say the ram, your money will get twice the amount of ram, you can add more to it for less.

I went the notebook route cuz I liked the portability of it, so far the notebook has left my room like 4 times in 3 years. And for the money I spent on the notebook I could have had 2 more desktops since then.

The main good thing about a notebook is the ability to show stuff on the road, which a 2nd hand old notebook can do as well. :0) Id leave the graphics/video editing for a desktop. Larger screen's, larger keyboards, a real mouse, and something you probably dont think of, staring down at a notebook screen can cause neck pain, trust me. :0).

GerryDavid · Mar 27, 2004

voodoocat said:
I hope you plan on connecting it to a CRT monitor for image editing.

Why are you hoping he is going to use a CRT monitor instead of the notebook screen? :0)

Skyeg · Mar 27, 2004

the screen on most notebooks (and most lcd monitors) are horrible, they are low resolution, small, and have poor color. i use a sony 21" trinitron monitor, it is excelent, i also have an 18" lcd on this computer and there is a noticable difference in image quality.

GerryDavid · Mar 27, 2004

Skyeg said:
the screen on most notebooks (and most lcd monitors) are horrible, they are low resolution, small, and have poor color. i use a sony 21" trinitron monitor, it is excelent, i also have an 18" lcd on this computer and there is a noticable difference in image quality.

By resolution I assume you mean the number of pixels wide and tall, and on my notebook I have it at 1024X768, any higher and it would be to hard on the eyes to read the text. I also have the same resolution on my 17" monitor. :0).

Skyeg · Mar 27, 2004

i use 1600 x 1200 on my 17" monitors

markc · Mar 27, 2004

Some info on LCD vs. CRT.

From what I understand, it takes a bit of money to get an LCD screen that is up to snuff. I've heard good things about the Apple ones. Despite that article's author choice, the consensus still seems to be to use a CRT if you are serious about corect color. Even he said he has to live with the blues being off.

If you aren't to worried about color matching, then the benefits of an LCD may make it worth it.

Harpper · Mar 27, 2004

GerryDavid said:
Why are you hoping he is going to use a CRT monitor instead of the notebook screen? :0)

Current LCD technology doesn't display color accurately which for photographers, graphic designs, and anyone else in the arts field is a problem if you go professional or become a serious amateur. Also if you buy a decent CRT monitor they are much sharper than an LCD. LCD monitors tend to be a little on the burry side but if you use it daily your eyes get used to it. I noticed the blur on my LCD when I hooked my laptop to a CRT.

Also most people buy cheapo CRT monitors and might not notice much of a difference but if you invest in a good monitor then you'll see the difference. I have a cheapo monitor and a good one. The quality is like night and day. Although when it comes to accurate colors my cheapo CRT still beats my LCD.

At first I only thought people in the arts fields would only notice the difference in colors, but my cousin noticed it right away when he used my laptop for the first time.

GerryDavid said:
By resolution I assume you mean the number of pixels wide and tall, and on my notebook I have it at 1024X768, any higher and it would be to hard on the eyes to read the text.

If the text is too small you can always increase it through Windows and just about all browsers let you increase the default font size for websites. Generally speaking, the larger you go in resolution the sharper images become. Try switching your resolution to 640x480 and then comparing that with 1024x768. Just make sure you monitor can handle the higher resolutions with adequate refresh rates (75 or more).

LCDs also have a native resolution meaning they don't look that great at any other resolution. This isn't too much of a problem unless you want to change it. Although considering 800x600 use to be normal, 1024x768 is now becoming normal and more people are starting to go higher like Skyeg.

I do agree with Gerry in that Osmer should go for a desktop if he doesn't need the portability or compact design. Not only do desktops give you more for the same price as a laptop but they are more upgradable. That's slowly starting to change for laptops but currently for most laptops you can only upgrade RAM and hard drives. Osmer you might want to get a modular laptop if you are worried about its limitations but its still not as upgradable as a desktop. With a desktop you can upgrade it piece by piece.

Osmer, I forgot to mention that getting a pretty decent graphics card is just as important as a fast processor. Although with your 2k spending limit, most mid to high end computers already come with decent to good graphic cards.

Digital Matt · Mar 28, 2004

I just have one thing to add about video cards. For photography, and 2d graphic design, there is no need to buy a $300 Geforce 256mb gaming card. Those cards are designed for use with direct X and 3d games, and will not aid your 2d photography or graphic design, other than having lots of ram.

You can save money, and get a good 2d card with lots of ram, if your only interest is photography and the programs associated with it.

Harpper · Mar 28, 2004

Digital Matt said:
You can save money, and get a good 2d card with lots of ram, if your only interest is photography and the programs associated with it.

Right. There's no need to get an expensive gaming card. Sorry I didn't make that clearer in my last post. Just avoid the intergrated graphics card found on most budget end desktop models. I had one and it was horrible which is probably why I even made note of it. It sounds like Osmer is buying at least a mid end computer so the graphics card so do. I didn't mean to confuse you Osmer.

Geronimo · Mar 28, 2004

I just thought I would throw a tangent into this discussion.

Linux. Yep, that good old free OS. As far as the idustry standard being Macs, well that is changing. Most if not all the major 3D studios use Beowolf clusters to do the video rendering. So when the designer is done for the day it becames part of the cluster. Sure Chase might find this interesting.

Oh and one more thing to think about. The lack of software. While macs do have good software, there has been a recent shift of third party vendors not offering products to the Apple/Mac based computers.

That being said they are nice for graphics, but I personally prefer a PC (Windows or not)

Skyeg · Mar 28, 2004

i like linux (not as much as unix....but we wont get into that), but i try to avoide it due to an almost total lack of software. i use linux at work on servers, but i would never put it on a computer for stuff like general use or photo editing.

TheProf · Mar 28, 2004

Bill gates owns 51% of macintosh.

Here is my thought I use both and Im a photographer and a 3D animator.

The reason Mac is called the standard is because the use to be superior when It came to imaging. But things have changed and now PC are as good if not better. If you are just looking to do imaging mac is a good choice although I hate that if anything goes wrong, Which happens all the time, there is not much you can do to solve the problem other than force quit , reset, boot from CD..... all of these dont really adress the problem. I like PC because you can actually fix problems. Also the ability to upgrade is far better. I have a custom built PC at home that has gone through 3 mother board and processor upgrades. Cant do that with a Mac.

Now the one thing I have to say good about Mac is that they are great for Video, dont ask me why but they seem to handle it pretty well.

But when it comes to 3D or Imaging forget it you get way more bange out of a good PC.

I got a Dual G5 with 2 gigs of Ram at work and my single P4 2.8 with one gig of ram smokes it!! Go figure??

markc · Mar 28, 2004

I agree with a lot of what's being said about the various OSes and platforms, but here's the thing...

Who's going to win a race? Someone driving a Mustang with an automatic transmission who has been driving it for years...

or someone in an NASCAR racer who has never even driven a stick shift before.

My money is on the Mustang, even though the full-out racecar is "better". It would take the average person a lot of time and effort to get good enough in that NASCAR brute to beat the experenced Mustang driver.

That may be an extreme example, but these arguements always seem at assume an equal starting point. Unless a person is completely new to computers and doesn't already have any equipment, more factors than just a system's merits have to be taken into account.