Vista unsuitable for photo editing!

[Christie Photo]

I really can't understand anyone who would choose a PC over a Mac given the current offerings.

In my case, I would LOVE to have Mac, but don't want to purchase all my software all over again.

 

[Big Mike]

In my case, I would LOVE to have Mac, but don't want to purchase all my software all over again.

Can't you run something like a windows emulator on the Mac, allowing you to run any software inside of that? It would eat up more RAW but still work.

I've heard that anyway, not sure if it's practical or not...can anyone confirm.

 

[zioneffect564]

No on a mac you can fully run windows with both OS up at the same time.

 

[Christie Photo]

ehh... it still scares me. All the troubles I had with OS9 and 9.2.... I dread the thought of trying to run old and older apps in a brand new environment.... cross platform

 

[sabbath999]

No on a mac you can fully run windows with both OS up at the same time.

I run Parallels (which is not an emulator... those are slow... rather, it is a virtualization program which has virtually no impact on performance)... and CS2 runs much faster in the Windows version than the Power PC Mac version (CS 3 fixes this, of course... but I don't have that yet).

As long as you have plenty of memory, you can run MAC OS X, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro AND Linux, all at the same time on the same screen, with no performance issues. I know, I have done it.

The only thing that doesn't work well in Parallels is graphics acceleration (i.e. advanced windows games). You can, however, simply reboot into a windows partition to run those. No big deal.

People always say about how Macs are much more expensive, and you are only paying for the styling. It's nonsense. That's like saying a Nikon D200 is more expensive than a $100 4MP HP point & shoot, but the only real difference between the two is that the D200 looks cooler.

In truth, you can simply do a lot of things with the D200 that you can't with the $100 HP point and shoot... and you can do a lot of things with a Mac that you simply can't do with a PC.

 

[cigrainger]

All you guys -- The intel macs all run Windows natively. Not an emulator. All your programs for Windows still work if you boot up to windows on the Intel Mac.

OSX is not like OS9.

You definitely pay for performance, not looks. If you do run OSX, like you should, you get a far faster operating system. The machine is infinitely more capable of taking advantage of the power it's given. The 2.16 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo Macs run at speeds comparable to 4GHz+ on PC, while using less RAM.

There are also no common viruses and no spyware.

There's a reason most graphics designers, film editors, 3D designers, etc all use Macs. And you can say what you want, but they do.

Now that you can boot Windows natively, there's absolutely no reason not to get a Mac.

 

[cigrainger]

I run Parallels (which is not an emulator... those are slow... rather, it is a virtualization program which has virtually no impact on performance)... and CS2 runs much faster in the Windows version than the Power PC Mac version (CS 3 fixes this, of course... but I don't have that yet).

As long as you have plenty of memory, you can run MAC OS X, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro AND Linux, all at the same time on the same screen, with no performance issues. I know, I have done it.

The only thing that doesn't work well in Parallels is graphics acceleration (i.e. advanced windows games). You can, however, simply reboot into a windows partition to run those. No big deal.

People always say about how Macs are much more expensive, and you are only paying for the styling. It's nonsense. That's like saying a Nikon D200 is more expensive than a $100 4MP HP point & shoot, but the only real difference between the two is that the D200 looks cooler.

In truth, you can simply do a lot of things with the D200 that you can't with the $100 HP point and shoot... and you can do a lot of things with a Mac that you simply can't do with a PC.

Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I didn't. :mrgreen:

 

[cigrainger]

Because you may need a PC to run other software that doesn't run on a Mac.

Doesn't exist. Intel Macs run windows, not emulated.

 

[Big Mike]

I think most people will agree with all that...but what does a '2.16 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo' Mac cost? I guessing it's a pretty penny.

Like anything, it comes down to priorities and budget. I have a camera that costs quite a bit more than my computer because that's my priority.

I would love to have a fully loaded 5 series BMW to get around...and the specs are much better than my car...but that's not my priority and I can't afford it.

 

[cigrainger]

I think most people will agree with all that...but what does a '2.16 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo' Mac cost? I guessing it's a pretty penny.

Like anything, it comes down to priorities and budget. I have a camera that costs quite a bit more than my computer because that's my priority.

I would love to have a fully loaded 5 series BMW to get around...and the specs are much better than my car...but that's not my priority and I can't afford it.

The 20" iMac 2.16 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo is $1499 without a student discount. You can get a 17" iMac 1.83 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo for under a grand ($999 without a student discount). They're cheaper if you're a student or teacher.

That includes a gig of RAM, a good graphics card, good mouse and keyboard, 250 gig harddrive, 90 days complimentary service and a year warranty. It also comes with iLife, which is an amazing package of programs. There are also tons of great open source freeware for Macs.

Expensive? A bit, but certainly not more than a PC that is comparable in performance, can't run OSX, gets trojan viruses or spyware, etc. It's also a neat little package that has a 16:10 aspect ratio HD display, and fast CD/DVD burner.

You simply can't beat a new Mac for value:money ratio.

And I know at least here in the UK, students can do a lease scheme, which is what I'm doing. I have a G4 Powerbook that has done right by me (except for a problematic battery), and I plan on getting a 24" 2.16 ghz iMac with 2 gig of RAM and the 3 year extended service warranty. Sounds tasty to me, for less than £50 a month with no interest, and option to buy at the end for an addition 2% of the total cost. It's within my budget as a student.

 

[RacePhoto]

Why would you try photo editing with Vista? It's a RAM hog.

Vista is seriously a joke.

I really can't understand anyone who would choose a PC over a Mac given the current offerings.

I'm not about to run Vista until I'm forced to. That may be never.

As for your second question. I run PCs just because all my MAC **** friends can't stand it. All they talk about all day is how the MAC does this and includes that... Except the ones who switched to PCs and discovered the rest of the world. It's tiring to hear the same cheering "Mac, Mac, Mac" every time someone asks a question about a PC.

Might as well add that I'm in the process of installing Ubuntu on a test system and may be running Linux soon. So MS Corp. can Byte Me, if they want to issue their new, untested, bug infested, memory hog, OS in the future.

Sorry, I'm not going to join the cult of MAC lovers in this lifetime.

This thread was about VISTA, wasn't it? Oops, I'm wrong, it was another cheerleader for Macs.

 

[cigrainger]

I'm not about to run Vista until I'm forced to. That may be never.

As for your second question. I run PCs just because all my MAC **** friends can't stand it. All they talk about all day is how the MAC does this and includes that... Except the ones who switched to PCs and discovered the rest of the world. It's tiring to hear the same cheering "Mac, Mac, Mac" every time someone asks a question about a PC.

Might as well add that I'm in the process of installing Ubuntu on a test system and may be running Linux soon. So MS Corp. can Byte Me, if they want to issue their new, untested, bug infested, memory hog, OS in the future.

Sorry, I'm not going to join the cult of MAC lovers in this lifetime.

This thread was about VISTA, wasn't it? Oops, I'm wrong, it was another cheerleader for Macs.

... Except I grew up on PCs, programmed in C++, can use DOS natively, ran help desk at a major company at 16 (PC-based), and have run Linux on several machines. My dad is a CIO. I literally grew up behind a keyboard.

I'm 19 now and have had a Powerbook for just under two years. I'll never go back. I used to have a PC desktop with XP and my Powerbook laptop. No need now with an Intel iMac on the way.

Sorry, it's not "the rest of the world". Mac is far better NOW. Anything a PC can do, a modern Mac can do, and most of the time, it can do it better. You can triple-boot OSX, Windows, and Ubuntu. Sorry, you can't boot OSX on a PC, but you can boot Windows on a Mac.

It has nothing to do with cheerleading. It has to do with effective solutions, a better operating system, and better quality.

Linux, while great, is limited as well.

If you choose to avoid is just because you've decided you have to be different from your friends, well that's your loss. Don't try to speciously support that decision any other way.

Oh, and Leopard is going to OWN. :greenpbl:

 

[Trenton Romulox]

It all really comes down to personal preferences and personal budget.

Spec for spec, Macs are definitely more expensive than PCs, but the OS (Mac OS X) is definitely way better (to me) than Windows XP or Vista. But it really all comes down to what people feel comfortable using. For me, it's my Mac Pro all the way, any day, but for some people, it's XP or Vista. And that's fine. We can all be happy, right?

 

[cigrainger]

It all really comes down to personal preferences and personal budget.

Spec for spec, Macs are definitely more expensive than PCs, but the OS (Mac OS X) is definitely way better (to me) than Windows XP or Vista. But it really all comes down to what people feel comfortable using. For me, it's my Mac Pro all the way, any day, but for some people, it's XP or Vista. And that's fine. We can all be happy, right?

Of course. The spec-for-spec thing always gets me though. People don't realize that seemingly lesser specs on a Mac equates to equal or higher performance.

I was just saying it's kind of ridiculous to choose a PC just because other people like Macs. That's pretty unreasonable.

 

[daisydaisy]

Hi

I'm a mac girl through and through but recently bought a PC too. It came with Vista pre-loaded on it, and it ran like a half-dead dog! It would take minutes to open a new program, had a nightmare refreshing the screen, etc and all those "Are you REALLY sure you want to open this file?" questions were driving me crazy.

So I decided to install XP over the top. But Vista said NO! I tried reformatting the hardddrive, but Vista said NO! Everything I tried to do resulted in failure. In the end, I had to run it from an XP boot disk and install it in a separate partition and then delete the original partition, but what a nightmare.

It felt like I was 'Dave' in 2001 A Space Odysee!

I would recommend to anyone thinking of installing it that they do it in a partition first, rather than getting rid of XP because it is really hard to get rid on it once it is there!

Daisy Daisy --<--@

www.shutterspeedtravel.com