Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote: But none of them have Mac OS X and therefore are not comparable.
RAM and disks are cheap enough.
Tosh total and utter. If you want a machine for office and photo editing then compare it on how the industry standard applications run. So for Photo's Lets have Photoshop CS4, and for Office lets have MS Office 2007.
Then lets set them the task of doing some common processing tasks. Lets compare how a good 23" screen compares to a 20" screen. The OS in this case is irrelevant as both support it.
Take all the emotional baggage out of it, lets see a straight comparison. I have no problem with OS-X, I view it ambivalently as it is only an OS and the end applications should be the same. And the applications are setting the user interface here as well.
So for the same money, is it better to have OS-X but with the smaller memory and smaller screen, or Vista 64 bit with more memory and a bigger screen. My concern with apple is they throttle total performance by picking style over electronic design and price too high.
Even the two Dell machines I picked show the compromises to performance per £ that occurs as you go for the styled integrated unit. Now imagine if you could get a modern Base machine with the new Core's running a decent quality display and it could run OS-X. Think how much faster for the same money you could have. Come on Apple lets have a value for power users machine.
All these comparisons show to me is that Apple could produce a greater performance machine for the price, and that they do not, to me, is sad and unfair on those who must use the Mac system. Admit it, would you turn down the current iMac if they took the £100 extra profit Apple makes over the Pc vendors. Or would you reject a decent base machine with your choice of OS and the better screen for the same price?
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
That's your opinion, personally I'd rather run OSX on a mobile phone than windows on a Cray.
I am responsible for our little networ here (3 servers and 6-8 workstations and my support workload fell to almost zero since we switched to a Linux/Mac configuration. I do more support for friends with windows than I do for all our computers here
And Stolzty we run a network of over 100 machine running Windows with little or no overhead. What does that prove, if you know what you are doing it just works, the OS is trivial. We used to run Linux on a couple of servers, we gave up as there was no advantage and more systems to support.
Oh and we could not use Mac as the applications we use are not supported on non-windows platforms, a situation true for the majority of design software.
Let me try again, I see no reason to pick between Windows or Mac, except for price or how pretty it looks, but even there there are choices.
Still lets sort it, how about someone running the real test of same applications on the different machines. To be honest all OS are reliable enough not to worry. Lets see how they and the hardware process some files and images and lets look at how the images look on the displays.
The computer exists to do a task. Not to look pretty in the corner of the room.
It's really quite simple if we are talking around a £900 pound budget.
For this sum you get a substandard box with an " Apple " logo on it..!
Wisely spent the same amount gets you a decent " Computer " ....
Quote: Let me try again, I see no reason to pick between Windows or Mac
Macs run OSX, that is why they are more expensive. No body is forcing you to buy it, but if you appreciate its benefits its worth every penny.
Since apple is about the only computer manufacurer with growing sales at the moment plenty of people seem to appreciate the difference.
Quote: if you know what you are doing it just works
I don't want to become an expert just to use a computer, I want it to just work.
Quote: To be honest all OS are reliable enough not to worry
Now you owe me for a new keyboard - this one has coffee and saliva all over it!
Quote: For this sum you get a substandard box with an " Apple " logo on it..!
And OSX inside
Stolzy are you saying you are a network administrator that does not know about computers??????????????????
And OSX does not account for the price difference, big fat apple profit does OSX should cost less to develop and maintain than Windows because of the reduced platform and application base and because they pay less attention to legacy.
OK there are fewer users, but it is what, less than £20 a machine in real cost.
As for reliability we have a system that measures down time. All I can do is talk about the network and machines I have management responsibility for. Time is money, I would know if it were not reliable. We have machines with very long up time and no crashes.
Pick OSX by all means, but I cannot substantiate your anti Windows stance, and can provide evidence to the contrary. But I can point to over high prices and sub optimal performance. I would have no qualms leaving windows behind, it is only an OS. But Apple is not the direction to leap.
But as I said worry about the Screen and the applications. The OS only sits below to allow the applications to run.
Quote: Stolzy are you saying you are a network administrator that does not know about computers??????????????????
No I'm not a network administrator - we don't need one - we have Macs.
But I am the person responsible for maintaining the servers and workstations.
it's supposed to be a very small part of my job, and now we have Macs, it is.
Ah so an amateur sticking a few mac's together shows what???? I have a home network, up to 5 different lap top's, two base machines, a PS3, a PSP, and an iPod touch all working on it. What does that prove. Nothing apart from its a piece of cake to do such a thing.
So that makes Linx, Xp, Vista, and whatever the iPod runs all working together. and the OS problems????/
Easy is it not? Proves nothing, sorry.
I take it you give in on the performance comparison?
If you have to ask you are a PC user! Just enter the real world and buy a bl**dy MAC. It's like Nikon, once you have used one you will never want to use anything else!!!
A good analogy, when you try them you find the differences quite small and in the end decide there is not much in it. Now how much do they cost again.
Nikon/Canon not a lot in it.
time to go back to the real world.
Quote: Easy is it not? Proves nothing, sorry.
We used to have a windows network - and a nerd for hire to fix the problems - he's spending more time with his family now.
I spend less time on admin tasks now (without the nerd and without windows) than I did with windows and his help.
Well I have not experienced the problems you mention. so what does that prove????
Give us some examples of the problems. Also how old was the windows kit. Would replacing it with up to date stuff have solved your problems? It is a trend of advancing IT that you spend less maintaining it.
It's true not much in it. but I just prefer the way the mac works. I used only PCs for 10yrs maybe and it was fine, still use them at work everyday. But the MAC just has something else. Use-ability maybe? They are slicker.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st March 2014 - 31st March 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View March's Photo Month Calendar