Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

PC or Mac?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 1:38 PM


Quote: PS Two fingers

Yeah, the standard PC solution - install some dodgy 3rd party hack!

Seriously, the amount of crap you have to put on a PC to get it running how a Mac does out of the box is ridiculous.

Oh, and an interesting quote from The Luminous Landscape (discussing a recent workshop/expedition to Antarctica):


Quote: I brought along my 15" Macbook Pro and two 500 GB portable drives. I downloaded cards to both drives simultaneously using Lightroom and when traveling home carried the drives in separate bags. No issues.

Interestingly, though Macs represent only some 5% of the total computer market, at least 60% of the photographers aboard were using Mac laptops.

And of the 10 or so pro photographers I know or have met, 8 of them use Macs. They can't all be rich fashion-victims, can they? Wink

Last Modified By joolsb at 7 Feb 2009 - 1:39 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
7 Feb 2009 - 1:38 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

JJGEE
JJGEE  96205 forum posts England18 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 1:53 PM


Quote: What does OSX do that Microsoft's latest can't do?

One Version ... One Price Smile

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139385 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 2:04 PM


Quote: One Version ... One Price

So no flexibility then? Wink

Last Modified By Carabosse at 7 Feb 2009 - 2:04 PM
joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 2:08 PM


Quote: What does OSX do that Microsoft's latest can't do?

If you're a geek and enjoy spending hours trawling the Web for hacks, some of which will crash or not work as advertised or not work quite as well as you'd expect, almost nothing. If you're a normal user who just wants something that works intuitively straight out of the box, then loads.

From little things like attention to detail which may seem minor in themselves but which add up to a computing experience that is seamless and (mostly) free of frustration and irritation to well-designed apps.

Anyway, you asked so here are a few things: iLife, for one. Seamless integration across apps, for another.

And apps which work how you expect them to, rather than how some geek programmer thinks they should work.

Let's take a simple example: cut and paste. On the Mac, all apps recognise the associated key-equivalents and have the cut and paste always on the 'Edit' menu. I use a PC at work and it annoys me constantly that things are not so easy in Windows. On the PC, some apps support Ctrl-C etc., some don't. Some use function keys, others don't. Some have the functions on a menu - not necessarily the 'edit' menu. And don't get me started on 'Preferences'. On the Mac, 'Preferences' are always called just that and always appear on the App menu - because that's what they are, app preferences. On the PC, they are called 'Preferences', 'Favorites', 'Properties', etc. and who knows on which menu the App desginer has deigned to put them!!

Even Microsoft can't make things consistent across it's products. Look how differently the individual apps of the Office suite work. It's a mess!

And then there is Outlook. The most non-intuitive, crappily designed dog-turd of an app ever foisted on an unsuspecting market by a company with more than enough money and, one might presume, talent to be able to do better. Much better. Only they can't be a*sed because they know they have a captive market for whatever sh!t they can be bothered to slap together in a hurry.

The interface in Outlook is a non-intuitive disgrace. Tried removing the gridlines which Outlook always puts in a mailbox view? I don't suppose you have because you probably gave up after hunting through all the different menu items and all the different dialogue boxes before you found the one little checkbox which does the trick. It's not on PReferences, oh no. That would be far too easy. No, it's under 'View options', 'Edit view' or somesuch (not at work so can't verify the full details).

And when is a Tool a tool and not an Action? Why the hell do you need both?? Why can I never find something under 'Actions' because Microsoft have decided, quite arbitrarily because there's no definition anywhere, it's a 'tool' and vice-versa? Thoughtless design, that's why.

Does that answer your question?

Now, excuse me while I find my blood-pressure medication.... Wink

Last Modified By joolsb at 7 Feb 2009 - 2:11 PM
Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139385 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 2:09 PM

Ooo-er! Too much information! Sad

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 2:12 PM

Sorry. Got a bit carried away, there. Years of frustration from having to put up with Windows at work, I'm afraid. Wink

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 2:39 PM


Quote: I think you're making stuff up. Which Windows application has its preferences in the Favorites menu?

That's not the point. Why can't 'Preferences' be at least called the same thing in different apps? That would be a start.


Quote: If I want to show hidden files by default in the Mac Finder

That's not something I have ever needed to do.

And that's the point. If you're a geek, you can do the Unix CLI stuff and see everything. If you are, like most people, a normal non-techy user then it's hidden so as not to cause confusion.

But you knew that already.

Last Modified By joolsb at 7 Feb 2009 - 2:39 PM
joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 2:46 PM

Ahh, but isn't it all about the apps? Shouldn't the OS be seamless and unimportant to most people?

Wink

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139385 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 2:55 PM


Quote: So what can I do with a Macintosh application that I can't do with a Windows application?

The answer is presumably.................. nothing!

(But to get a Mac enthusiast to actually admit it would require sophisticated torture techniques! Wink)

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 3:02 PM


Quote: The answer is presumably.................. nothing!

Yes, but that's actually missing the whole point. It's never been about what the Mac does but how it does it. And that's what PC users just don't get.

I thought I explained that in my rant above.... Wink

Last Modified By joolsb at 7 Feb 2009 - 3:02 PM
User_Removed
7 Feb 2009 - 3:18 PM

Not again..............Wink Why oh why oh why!!

mdpontin
mdpontin  106016 forum posts Scotland
7 Feb 2009 - 3:27 PM

Col...my advice would be: don't feed the trolls.

strawman
strawman  1021997 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 5:07 PM

An attempt to rationalise.

These days if you buy a reasonably specified computer from a good manufacturer then you should have a machine capable of being a good photo editing platform.

There are two problems I can think of with Windows OS PC's
1 There are some low cost machines with poor drivers that are flakey and give rise to crashes
2 There is a lot of free software for the PC, some of it is poorly written and prone to causing problems. Also there is software witten for the PC to attack it.

For the Apple based system there are two problems for photographers
1 The systems tend to be very integrated so it is hard to get an optimal for photography machine and the customisation options are limitted
2 The hardware and OS sourcing are tied together and Apple makes the higgest progit per unit of the suppliers out there.

So the correct system for you will be dictated by some choices.

For the best performance, ie. best display and processing speed, get a 64 bit Windows based machine with multiple monitors

For the most stylish and probably easiest to set up machine get an Apple.

For the best Value for money system, get a windows based PC.

A lot is made of the OS differences, but in photo editing what you use is the application. So for me, the value is in a good quality big display and a lot of memory to support the application.

Whilst Apple do supply base station machines you can add displays to, they are somewhat long in the tooth and very expensive. Their more medium priced machines have integrated displays. This is a dissadvantage in that you are limitted in display size and often left with only Gloss displays. This is a shame as a Medium priced base machine running the Apple OS might be a very attractive machine for photographers.

But if you can live with the display sizes provided, they are nice machines.

A lot is made of the OS differences, with windows reliability being a big issue. But honestly I have an 18 month old Lap top with no crashes in its life, and it is used more than 40 hours per week, and often goes for days with regular pop's in and out of suspend. I have a year or so old desk machine, it has crashed twice on user swaps, the cause Kaspersky Virus software, which they have patched. In over 7 months and attempts at breaking it by teenagers it has run with no hitch or un-planned shut down. I know of over 70 machines where I work with similar reliability.

I have seen poor windows performance. Win95 springs to mind. Of more recent machines I have seen with problems they have been caused by either spy or virus software, often brought on board by file sharing software installed by kids looking for free music and video's. The other was caused by faulty RAM and poor quality power supply modules in very low cost machines.

So again I conclude, that for a well specified and built machine you can have a reliable machine using the OS-X or Windows OS. The applications are far more important, and yes there are differences, and you will either look and say wow thats cool, or wow is that it.

Last Modified By strawman at 7 Feb 2009 - 5:11 PM
cameracat
cameracat  108578 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2009 - 6:24 PM


Quote: 2 There is a lot of free software for the PC, some of it is poorly written and prone to causing problems. Also there is software witten for the PC to attack it.

This and user errors account for over 95% of computer related issues, Be it Mac OS or Windows, The problem that Microsoft faces is that there is way more rubbish software made for thier OS, And Billions more Windows users, Therefore greater odds that " Numpty users will either install flakey software, Or just screw up thier computers through incompetence.......!

It's the age old problem companies with the vast majority of the market share face.....! Hence The Ford motor company has more complaints than Subaru.......

stuleech
stuleech  9210 forum posts
7 Feb 2009 - 6:27 PM

Strawman, the fact that you have posted at least 3 replies per page on this shows that you care far too much about computers than you should do.

Also commenting on style over substance is the least original Apple argument known to man. Taking the iPod as an example, it single-handedly revolutionised the MP3 market along with iTunes. Now I doubt you could argue that an iPod is not functional or doesn't work as well as a zune et al but yet it is in the design museum. You even said there is an ipod in your household. This is because of the STYLE & THE FUNCTIONALITY

The problem is that MAC gets a bad rap for being expensive and seemingly less capable to a supposed equally specced windows machine. You can of course build you own laptops and PCs and probably come up with an ultra reliable, ultra quiet, non crashing beast of a machine but if you buy an HP, or any other domestic brand of the shelf you are likely to end up with a problematic machine after a year or so. I can testify to this from my own experiences.

You also talk a lot of nonsense regarding MACs and as far as I am aware you haven't ever used one. Apple not caring about legacy for example. The fact is that I know people who have loaded Leopard (released last year) on to 5+ year old ibooks and not only has it worked but it has improved the performance of the laptop.

And why is it that Microsoft sell multiple versions of the same operating system at different price points? Don't tell me that it's anything other than profiteering.


Quote: I have seen poor windows performance. Win95 springs to mind. Of more recent machines I have seen with problems they have been caused by either spy or virus software, often brought on board by file sharing software installed by kids looking for free music and video's. The other was caused by faulty RAM and poor quality power supply modules in very low cost machines.

So what you are saying is that Windows machines are liable to multiples problems? Excusing rogue software and poor components as some sort of outside problem doesn't really work does it. That is the exact problem. Cheap components to make the biggest profit margin in apparently "affordable" machines but all you end up is with substandard performance and break downs as you have just described. Apple selects the components and makes sure they work together in the system and that alone is worth paying the extra for because you are guaranteed on the most part not to run into any problems. With HP or Compaq or any PC in the likes of PC World that is not guaranteed and usually as already stated the components are cheap and unreliable.


Quote: Whilst Apple do supply base station machines you can add displays to, they are somewhat long in the tooth and very expensive. Their more medium priced machines have integrated displays. This is a dissadvantage in that you are limitted in display size and often left with only Gloss displays. This is a shame as a Medium priced base machine running the Apple OS might be a very attractive machine for photographers.

Apple displays are long in the tooth? So that new LED Apple display last year was a figment of my imagination. Why would you need to get an Apple display anyway, you can easily put a Dell display with a Mac Pro. I don't understand this limited display size with the integrated macs, I take it you mean iMacs? How is 20" or 24" limited? Are you telling me this is unusually small for a computer? For someone who tries to sound like they know what they are taking about this is utter tosh. All Macs also have display outs so you can also have multiple displays just like PCs. Again Gloss displays somehow not suitable for photographers, and why is this exactly? Admittedly they aren't too everybody's taste but stating they are unsuitable for photography is rubbish.

Last Modified By stuleech at 7 Feb 2009 - 6:33 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.