Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: What Computer do you use?
Mac - 121 (42%)
Intel - 97 (33.7%)
AMD - 67 (23.3%)
Other (please tell us) - 3 (1%)
Total Voters: 39

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What Computer do you use?  (Read 18947 times)
D White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73

Don White


WWW
« Reply #100 on: May 16, 2005, 02:07:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Bill Gates is the Sith, and he is trying to turn us all to the dark side of the force.

Most PC users have not tried a Mac. I was once an ignorant PC user constantly rebooting my computer and performing late night chants and sacrifices to get rid of viruses that the antivirus software let in. Then my older daughter forced me to try a Mac--I was saved.

Seriously, it is almost a religious experience to use a Mac. I got a Dual 800 G4 in 2001 and it is still going strong. I can not remember a crash. No anti virus and no viruses. We now have 2 powerbooks, an ibook, an iMac, and I just ordered a dual 2.3 G5. They are all in use every day in the family with no problems. They just work. And they come with a lot of software fully integrated.

You just do not know until you take the plunge. You will never look back.
Logged

Dr D White DDS BSc
Graham Welland
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 610


« Reply #101 on: February 06, 2005, 02:06:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Dual 2Ghz Mac G5 4.5GB ram, 500GB disk, Lacie Blue 19, 22in Cinema Display, Wacom 15in Cintiq, OS X 10.3.7 & PS CS

Now the reality ... Macs do crash. Anyone telling you that they don't isn't being realistic. I've used Mac's for years and even under 10.3.x your system can crash or require a restart primarily due to applications failing (Safari/FireFox particularly) - these typically kill the GUI but not necessarily the OS but the overall effect is the same - reboot. OS failure  is extremely rare however.

PC's - better bang for buck. If you just want performance vs price then you'll get a better deal with a PC. The logical choice for a platform. You can do everything that a Mac can do for image processing on a PC for less money.

Macs - the emotional choice & lifestyle decision.

I use PC's for my day job. I buy and use Macs exclusively for my own use where I'm paying the bills - the intangible/irrational logic is that they are just 'nicer'/easier to use and for me at least, more productive. Overall, PC's just don't feel 'finished' in so far as apps & XP don't have that fully integrated feel and user experience. All the cliches about Macs exist primarily because they are true.  ::
Logged

Graham
Stef_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


« Reply #102 on: February 08, 2005, 05:44:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for all the advice guys,

Please continue to debate the two, I am still following it closely, but I'd to add my say to this as well. Please bear in mind while reading this that I have zero experience with a Mac, and no photoshop experience with PC either.

One of the problems that I see his is that you are comparing specs. Specs, as I am sure you will agree, are numbers that mean absolutely nothing. Someone earlier pointed out that they could never tell a difference between a print made by a Mac and one made by a PC, while I am sure that this is true, this is also not the best way to compare the two.

In my mind, the only way to compare the two, is to give person A and person B the exact same photos, and comparable computers, one a Mac and one a PC. Then to let them do whatever it is that they want with the photos. Then whoever is done the fastest would be considered the most efficient. It doesn't matter if your PC/mac is uber fast if it crashes every second, because then you won't get the task done.

Also, another thing that I have noted in different Computer forums, is that Mac users are (generally) more happy with the preformance of their machines. Most mac users (from what i can tell) have used both platforms and have chosen Mac, while the same cannot be said for PC users. As for happiness, mac users are usually so thrilled with their machines that they won't get off them. For them it is almost a religion. Pc users, while some are very enthousiastic about their machines, do not take it to that level of passion.

By all means, please continue the debate, it is teaching me quite a bit and showing me both sides' points. Thank you.

Stefan
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #103 on: February 09, 2005, 12:34:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
True, but even well maintained systems can be flakey and any windows system need to be re-installed every year or so otherwise the system stability suffers (thanks in part to DLL hel) and it becomes more quirky over time.
Not true. If you're not constantly installing new games and crap like that there's no reason to periodically reinstall the OS. My Windows 2000 file server is still running the original OS install from 3-4 years ago, and the only downtime I've had with it is rebooting after installing occasional security updates. I can't remember the last time it crashed. But if you're constantly installing new applications (especially games), stability can be negatively affected.
Logged

djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #104 on: February 25, 2005, 06:32:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Just goes to show how different the experiences can be, I guess as different as the hardware and software configurations, which is to say, almost infinite.

I routinely have Photoshop, Dreamweaver, ThumbsPlus, Outlook plus several Win Explorer and Int Explorer sessions open in Win XP over the two 22" monitors. I never have any problems. OTOH, a couple of years ago XP would crash once or twice a week - I traced that finally to the ATI 9700 card, which apparently had problems in dual-head mode.

The big plus for the Mac environment is that apple controls both the base hardware as well as the OS. Amiga had the same advantage. The Wintel/WinAMD environment is a real hodge-podge from all over the place. I'm always amazed it works as well as it does with some judicious configuring.

The key thing is that you find a platform configuration that you're comfortable with, and can spend the amount of time you want with the apps you want.

Cheers,

DJ
Logged

Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #105 on: February 10, 2005, 05:30:02 PM »
ReplyReply

The point still remains that no matter what the hardware, OS, or applications used, limiting software installations to the minimum necessary to accomplish the task at hand is best practice. Installing buggy applications can cause problems on any platform. If one depends on the reliability of a machine for one's livelihood (or even one's hobby), then don't install anything unnecessary on that machine. This is equally applicable to full-time pros, casual amateurs, and everyone in between, regardless of computer type.

Of course, whether people choose to follow best practice is another story.
Logged

mikebinok
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



« Reply #106 on: March 23, 2005, 10:53:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Woo hoo!  I just upgraded to an AMD Athlon XP+3200 with two gig of RAM.  I still have my Raptor hard drives.  Not the fastest machine around, I'm sure, but it blazes for me!  And should keep me going for two more years, when 64-bit is fully mature and the Windows 64-bit OS has had the first service pack released (which would mean "out of beta testing" from any other manufacturer!  Cheesy)
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #107 on: May 23, 2005, 05:34:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Jani, I hear you, but here's another reality check: amortize that several hundred dollars over a two or three year holding period on a computer, and that annual cost difference for many people would be a few months of coffees at Starbucks. OK? What I mean is that affordability is a somewhat elastic concept because there are trade-offs - unless one is truly down to the wire for every last cent - then I agree it's a different story and tipping points are more sensitive to small differences.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
ausoleil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #108 on: April 22, 2005, 09:15:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I can agree with you on that count Mark, however, as an electrical engineer by training and an IT systems engineer by profession, I tend to build my own hardware -- and there, the argument is very much a salient one.  Really though, anyone with much computer hardware skills could save a lot of money assembling their own equipment, because in the high end of desktop computing, there really is a big price break.

Me, I have a dual core 64-bit Opteron machine under contruction, with a fibre channel 1 TB RAID 5 NAS to provide mass storage (already in use) -- something most vendors like Dell would not even begin to offer in the desktop class -- and I built it for less than the price of a dual G5.  As soon as I put enough RAM in her (at least 8GB) she'll completely replace a tired ole P4 3.0 GHz box which will be relegated to an internal network file and print server.
Logged
dot-borg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #109 on: September 19, 2005, 07:08:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Gentoo Linux on a dual core Athlon 64.
Logged

Whoever said "a picture is worth a thousand words" was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #110 on: September 19, 2005, 11:16:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I see one of the side effects of the forum crash is old topics being revived from the dead.

Well, I have a new 'puter so here goes:

Mac Dual 2.3Ghz G5
1.5GB RAM (soon to be 3.5GB)
ATI Radeon 9650
Superdrive (16x Dual-layer DVDs and CD-R/RW)
Two 250GB internal drives (One a Seagate Barracuda) + a 250 External
Two 20" widescreen displays (one Apple, one Dell)
OSX Tiger (10.4.2)
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8851


« Reply #111 on: September 20, 2005, 12:25:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Very nice, Daniel! But 3.5GB of RAM? The Adobe website implies that 8GB can serve a purpose on the Mac.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #112 on: September 20, 2005, 12:39:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Very nice, Daniel! But 3.5GB of RAM? The Adobe website implies that 8GB can serve a purpose on the Mac.
Perhaps but I only have so much money. An extra 2GB will due for now since I also have to pick up a tablet, buy some software and save up for a good RAID setup.
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #113 on: September 23, 2005, 02:52:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I've used PCs since I worked as an analyst for Shell Oil years ago.

Yes, PC were crash prone before Win 2000, but not anymore.

Yes, PCs have more viruses floating around than MACs, but that is 99.0% preventable is you know what you are doing. I've never had ONE virus that got away from me in 15 years of computing.

If you run photoshop and other large programs at the same time, you DEFINITELY want a Dual Core processor, and AMD wins the day as of this time.

I just built a new machine, and it is incredibly fast and a pure joy to work with, even over the new AMD FX 57 64 bit processor--I owned both in the last month. The dual core processor just kicks ass on any single core, or even Intel multithreaded CPUs.

It actually has 2 64 bit 2400Mhz CPUs on the die.

OK so here is my evidence to the above statements, and my system specs:

AMD X2 64 bit 4800, running at a clock speed of 2.4Ghz
2GB of Corsair Extreme Pro matched pair RAM (2 IGB modules)
ASUS A8N SLI Premium Mother Board
BFG 7800GTX video card with 256MB RAM

Want evidence that if you are running power hungy applications at the same time that the dual core is the way to go, ok, try this:

Using Photoshop CS or CS2 (or PS 7)
==================================================

1.) Download Image from http://www.quicklance.com/test.jpg

2.) Save it to computer and then open it up in Photoshop

3.) From there please apply a 'radial blur' with the settings at:

Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best

Use the PS timer to see how long it takes to apply this filter. Run the the test three times by closing teh image each time and re running the radial blur test, and then average the three runs. Now, here's the rub for those who wish to run another application while you work in Photoshop: Grab about 1GB of data and start the compression program Win RAR compressintg the files. I say use Win RAR because it pegs your CPU and must share the clock cycles with other apps running.

So start Win RAR compressing a bunch of files, and then run the radial blur test three times and average it.

My score:
No applications running except Photoshop and your firewalls, virus programs, and things lie that.
FX57 2.8 Ghz--the fastest single core desktop processor in the world at this writing: 64 seconds.
X2 4800 2.4Ghz Dual Core CPU: 36 seconds

All your regular programs running, virus scanners, firewalls, etc, plus Win RAR working on a 1GB file. Open Photoshop, and runt eh test:
FX57 1:49 secs
X2 4800 40 secs.

And there you have it. This also goes for other applications that you amy want to run while you work in Photoshop, like Win Amp, windows media payer, both to play music, a video conversion program, etc.

I will post this test in a new thread so we can get some fresh thread results.
Logged

Atlasman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #114 on: December 02, 2005, 06:21:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I use an AMD-powered PC with 1.5gb RAM running Win XP with more gadgets hanging off of it that I can remember.   If your view is that Macs are more reliable than PC's, I'd say its not true, provided you use good hardware.  The problem with PC's is variability in quality of the hardware.  Buy decent kit, and its rock solid and reliable.  My Win XP PC has never crashed.  Not once.   The consensus referred to that Macs are more reliable than PC's  is based on books written mainly by Mac users and to be fair, it may have been true at one time, but it has not been the case since Windows 2000, in my view.

We run a stock library from another PC.  

Buy what suits you.  Truly, the differences are now down to personal preferences, not performance or reliability.

Quentin

PS, yes I agree on the mouse issue  
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=46459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with the above.

I've had both systems until WinXP was released—now I just have Windows based systems. I've had Macs since 84 (still have the original with all the signatures on the inside of the case). That Macs are more stable that Win-based might have been true during the Windows 95/98 and possibly to some extent with the Windows 2000 years, but certainly not XP—unless you're into overclocking or have assembled your own system using low-grade components.

My system is stable and I've got specialized audio cards and USB/Firewire devices for audio/music production.
Logged
Atlasman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #115 on: December 02, 2005, 06:29:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The big plus for the Mac environment is that apple controls both the base hardware as well as the OS. Amiga had the same advantage. The Wintel/WinAMD environment is a real hodge-podge from all over the place. I'm always amazed it works as well as it does with some judicious configuring.

DJ
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=46541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At one time, I believed in the above: Apple had the advantage of controlling both the hardware and software. But, IMO, Microsofts huge bank account has completely negated this advantage. The MS development team is way beyond what Apple is capable of bringing together. What saved Apple, that we can even be having this discussion, is Steve came back, along with his Unix-based OS.

My two pennies.
Logged
Atlasman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #116 on: December 02, 2005, 06:34:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I can agree with you on that count Mark, however, as an electrical engineer by training and an IT systems engineer by profession, I tend to build my own hardware -- and there, the argument is very much a salient one.  Really though, anyone with much computer hardware skills could save a lot of money assembling their own equipment, because in the high end of desktop computing, there really is a big price break.

Me, I have a dual core 64-bit Opteron machine under contruction, with a fibre channel 1 TB RAID 5 NAS to provide mass storage (already in use) -- something most vendors like Dell would not even begin to offer in the desktop class -- and I built it for less than the price of a dual G5.  As soon as I put enough RAM in her (at least 8GB) she'll completely replace a tired ole P4 3.0 GHz box which will be relegated to an internal network file and print server.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=46545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You got it! I build my systems on the basis of upgradeability—I save a ton of cash building them myself, I have tremendous flexibility to conduct intrim upgrades, (e.g., replace HD or add another, replace CPU). When I was running Mac, I couldn't do that—when I need more horsepower, I had to go out and buy another system.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad