| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2006 05:02:48 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
If you want to separate truth from hype in relationship to graphic arts here it is...
Originally posted by digitalknight:
I've been a freelance graphic designer and animator for 17 years.
I can get a Mac or a PC to whatever I want - I've made lots of money with both. Both machines sit on my desk all the time.
A G5 Mac running OSX 10.3 (or better, I've upgraded now) is THE smoothest, most trouble free computer I have ever run.
The free software that comes with it is only a bonus. I've made so many professional presentations with this software - and charged my rates - it's very good software that is very functional.
I will run my Mac for 4 weeks between any kind of crash - Windows needs a good reboot every 2 - 3 days.
FWIW. |
|
i've been using a Mac since 1984 - i switched to PC in 1996
back then the most powerful PC was a PentiumPRO 200mhz which i purchased - my PowerMac forget the model - ran @ 132Mhz kicked its butt! but i was getting into 3D modeling and animation and the 3D apps on the Mac were really bad..
then the G3 came out and my opinion of apple went out the window, everything that made Apple superiour to PC's had dissapeared - no more SCSI as standard and it wouldn't stop crashing!
end of 1999 i decided to upgrade my PPRO200 so i made myself a dual PII 400Mhz with 256MB of RAM and it was so fast compaired to anything Apple produced and was half the cost!
i stopped using Macs 4 years ago when i became a freelance Graphic Designer - the choice to become fully PC was made easier when the one application that stopped me becoming fully PC was released - Suitcase i now had full control over my typefaces (fonts) and didn't have a list as long as my arm in Windows..
my art director at the time also decided to go freelance and bought himself a G4 400Mhz with 256MB of RAM - for 1/2 the cost of his system i again upgraded my dual 400 to a Dual 1Ghz with 2GB of RAM and it cost me 2/3 the cost of his system and again was faster..
i have to say i don't miss the Mac one bit, everything works as it should on the PC (Photoshop, Acrobat, InDesign, C1, etc), because i built this new system myself - i know whats in it and i know i have quality parts
i could if i wanted the hastle run the new Mac OS on this system (yes its possible to run OSX on a PC), but i don't see the need as i've tweeked the system to my way of thinking over the years and have all the bells and whistles turned off and don't have a startbar or active desktop to fill with clutter..
Safari as a browser is a PoS (i know i design websites) and is pretty much in the same league as IE when it comes to web standards..
at the end of the day its all about how much $ you have to spend, which OS you're happiest with, and when it comes to a year down the line do you want to just put a new CPU in or buy a whole new machine again..
|
|
|
|
07/12/2006 05:19:22 AM · #77 |
We use Macs in the photo department of our newspaper - new, top of the line machines. I hate them. Having used PCs all my life, I find the transition to Mac difficult and frustrating. To me, most of their processes do not seem logical or second nature.
I suppose that if I had grown up working on Macs, I'd feel the same way about Windows. Best advice is to give it a try and see what you think. Some people love it, some hate it.
Personally, I've never had any issues with PCs. I've owned Dells for over seven years, and they run great, with very few issues. The trick is to take care of them - keep them clean, keep them updated, don't do things that will infect them.
Someone earlier was complaining about the Windows updates and anti-spyware, etc. It takes what, an hour to do everything once every two weeks? Is that such an awful commitment? You depend on a car, you have to change the oil and fill it with gass and watch the other fluids - the computer is no different. Bottom line, if you maintain your equipment, it won't fail you.
I'll close by saying that having done Photoshop work on both machines, there is nothing you can do on one, editing wise, that you can't do on the other with similar ease and results. The difference in platforms depends entirely on user preference.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2006 06:37:07 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by biteme:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Anyone familiar with both? I have heard mac is better for photo processing and graphic design, and would like to know what is better about mac. (Specific comparisons would be most helpful, as I have never used a mac.)
Sorry if there have been other threads on this--I couldn't fine one. |
try one. I was hooked in 1 minute. part of that because of the pretty Dock (hey, eye-candy!) and because it's just such an easy machine to work on.. I don't have an Intel-thing, but I gotto say i love it. Don't wanna go back to Windows
:) |
The pretty dock like the one on the computer in my studio
|
|
|
|
07/12/2006 06:56:38 AM · #79 |
Just thought I would throw this out there. Recently in the news Macs got their first virus. I will try to find the article, but the point is people attack the larger target when they decide to do something malice. The PC market has dominated for so long that and the fact so many titles of software are made for it is why they get attacked. The more macs you see the more attacks on macs will occur
Found it
Article on Mac Virus
Message edited by author 2006-07-12 10:58:53. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 06:58:09 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Photoshop CS2 doesn't have a universal version out, (and from what I've heard, they won't until CS3), so you'll be running it on an emulator if you have a Mac. |
Not true. Assuming he already owns the PC version of Photoshop, it will run like lightning under Windows on a new Mac- no emulation necessary. In fact, it will run faster on a Mac laptop than some pretty heavy duty PC workstations! |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 07:01:48 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Photoshop CS2 doesn't have a universal version out, (and from what I've heard, they won't until CS3), so you'll be running it on an emulator if you have a Mac. |
Not true. Assuming he already owns the PC version of Photoshop, it will run like lightning under Windows on a new Mac- no emulation necessary. In fact, it will run faster on a Mac laptop than some pretty heavy duty PC workstations! |
I agree with you scalvert, but I think you missed what Artyste was saying that if you run under OSX you are running rosseta(not sure on the spelling)with CS2 and it runs slower, You are right that you can duel boot and run it under windows XP and it will run fast, but that requires purchase and installation of XP. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 07:04:07 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Recently in the news Macs got their first virus. |
There have been some weaknesses found, but despite those much-publicized reports of vulnerability, I don't think there has been a single malicious virus for Mac OS X to date. Some security firms have created proof-of-concept web pages, etc. to demonstrate weaknesses (subsequently patched by Apple), but I'm pretty sure no actual Mac viruses exist yet. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 07:07:29 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
...I think you missed what Artyste was saying that if you run under OSX you are running rosseta |
Looked to me like Artyste was implying that you could ONLY run Photoshop under Rosetta on a Mac, which just ain't true. Given that he has a Toshiba now, the OP may already own Windows and Photoshop, so no additional purchase would be required. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 07:11:31 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Recently in the news Macs got their first virus. |
There have been some weaknesses found, but despite those much-publicized reports of vulnerability, I don't think there has been a single malicious virus for Mac OS X to date. Some security firms have created proof-of-concept web pages, etc. to demonstrate weaknesses (subsequently patched by Apple), but I'm pretty sure no actual Mac viruses exist yet. |
Even if they did find a virus for the Mac OS X, the score would be
OS X - 1
Windows - 114,585
I'll take my chances with the Mac!
It's also nonsense that the Mac has less viruses because there are fewer Macs. Hackers attack Windows because they can. Fundamental differences in the OS make it much more difficult to get control of a Mac than getting control of Windows through malicious code.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2006 03:21:29 PM · #85 |
there are more security flaws in OSX than you'll know..
i used to trouble shoot Macs, and the amount of things users had on their machines without knowing it was amazing! they'd be "wow i've got a virus on my Mac?" because they were under the impression they were immune from them, they'd never gotten a virus checker!
the largest virus i'd ever seen on a Mac in the publishing world was Pasteboard.. |
|
|
|
07/16/2006 03:51:43 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Bobster:
there are more security flaws in OSX than you'll know..
i used to trouble shoot Macs, and the amount of things users had on their machines without knowing it was amazing! they'd be "wow i've got a virus on my Mac?" because they were under the impression they were immune from them, they'd never gotten a virus checker!
the largest virus i'd ever seen on a Mac in the publishing world was Pasteboard.. |
Give me a break. I've used Macs for years and never heard of Pasteboard except for the Quark Express extension. Being aware that I don't know all, I did several iterations in a google search and came up empty.
Back in June someone said they came up with a Virus for OS X but it was just a Trojan horse, an executable that had to be installed with the admin password. Big woop.
Are there vunerabilies? Sure, but nothing compared to any version of Windows.
So enlighten me please, what OS X viruses were on the Macs you used to troubleshoot?
|
|
|
|
07/16/2006 03:59:26 PM · #87 |
There was some worm program which circulated among the Mac community for a while; once on your system, it would infect any new volume mounted (e.g. floppy disk, SyQuest removable). It didn't do much harm.
There are also some Microsoft Word and Excel Macro viruses which could either affect Macs or were cross-platform.
There has been anti-virus software around for Macs about as long as for PCs, but up until not it's not been the problem it has been on the Windows platform.
If you run Windows on your new Mac, you'll face all the same vulnerabilities as any other Windows user. |
|
|
|
07/16/2006 04:01:43 PM · #88 |
| why would somebody writing a virus target macs when there are so many more pc users anyway? Then again why would anybody write a virus... |
|
|
|
07/16/2006 04:29:37 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Then again why would anybody write a virus... |
As a means to an end. |
|
|
|
07/16/2006 04:31:58 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
why would somebody writing a virus target macs when there are so many more pc users anyway? Then again why would anybody write a virus... |
BINGO! While there are many great things to say about the Mac OS, the safety from viruses comes more from the fact that most businesses run on Windows - and hackers generally want to cause damage to large institutions - more publicity that way. Mac's are more popular with schools, graphic artists and photographers - that's where the safety from viruses come from, not from a better OS design. Hackers can pretty much hit any system if they really wanted to, but there's no publicity in shutting down a bunch of graphics artists. |
|
|
|
07/16/2006 04:50:59 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by macpapas:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
why would somebody writing a virus target macs when there are so many more pc users anyway? Then again why would anybody write a virus... |
BINGO! While there are many great things to say about the Mac OS, the safety from viruses comes more from the fact that most businesses run on Windows - and hackers generally want to cause damage to large institutions - more publicity that way. Mac's are more popular with schools, graphic artists and photographers - that's where the safety from viruses come from, not from a better OS design. Hackers can pretty much hit any system if they really wanted to, but there's no publicity in shutting down a bunch of graphics artists. |
Sorry, no BINGO! That assumtion is just not correct. Viruses are easier to write for Windows than for OSX, it's a path of least resistance thing. OSX is UNIX at its core. UNIX has been around for a long, long time with many critical apps running banking, defense, etc. applications.
The key difference is the fact that you can tell a program to run and install on Windows without any cooperation from the user. This is where most of the virus/worms do thier damage.
OSX requires you to enter a password to install anything. That difference alone sets the 2 operating systems apart from an attack standpoint.
The fact that there happens to be more Windows machines out there is a factor, but it is not the only factor or even the most critical factor in why there are 100,000+ known viruses for Windows and 0 for OSX.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2006 04:55:18 PM · #92 |
| I have a G5 but my laptop is a sony and i like both. My Mac has only crashed once in a year and I use it to the max for film editing. i think mac is better for the creative side. but at the end of the day, photoshop runs on both. but mac has intel inside now, so score one for mac. honestly, when my laptop pc dies from some terrible virus that eats its micro chips, i will be buying a mac book. i guess mac won. |
|
|
|
07/16/2006 06:07:28 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by macpapas:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
why would somebody writing a virus target macs when there are so many more pc users anyway? Then again why would anybody write a virus... |
BINGO! While there are many great things to say about the Mac OS, the safety from viruses comes more from the fact that most businesses run on Windows - and hackers generally want to cause damage to large institutions - more publicity that way. Mac's are more popular with schools, graphic artists and photographers - that's where the safety from viruses come from, not from a better OS design. Hackers can pretty much hit any system if they really wanted to, but there's no publicity in shutting down a bunch of graphics artists. |
Sorry, no BINGO! That assumtion is just not correct. Viruses are easier to write for Windows than for OSX, it's a path of least resistance thing. OSX is UNIX at its core. UNIX has been around for a long, long time with many critical apps running banking, defense, etc. applications.
The key difference is the fact that you can tell a program to run and install on Windows without any cooperation from the user. This is where most of the virus/worms do thier damage.
OSX requires you to enter a password to install anything. That difference alone sets the 2 operating systems apart from an attack standpoint.
The fact that there happens to be more Windows machines out there is a factor, but it is not the only factor or even the most critical factor in why there are 100,000+ known viruses for Windows and 0 for OSX. |
Sorry, disagree. The MOST common factor for more Windows viruses is because there are more users. It took me 2 seconds to find this quote on the web. I'm sure if I had the interest, I could find technical and marketing security documents to back up that claim even further.
âMac viruses are kind of rare,â said Shane Coursen, senior technical consultant with Kaspersky Lab, an antivirus specialist. âWe donât see a lot of people writing viruses for the Mac because the number of Mac users is not as great as Windows.â article
If the situation were reversed and there were more Mac users than Windows users, hackers would be going after the Mac's.
I'm not arguing Mac vs. Windows here - I own both. It's just that the argument that Mac's are safer is flawed. Do a search on "Mac viruses" and just about every article will discuss the concern of increases in Mac viruses as the Mac becomes more popular and takes a bigger share of the market.
Is Windows more open and vulnerable to viruses than Mac's, YES. BUT, the more popular Mac's become, the more susceptible they will be to future attacks.
BINGO! |
|
|
|
07/16/2006 06:34:06 PM · #94 |
my 2 cents...
At home, I run a powerbook, at work I use XP.
Computer speed is the #1 worst reason to blow $4,000 on a new computer, (unless you are a pro filmaker or similar, and definitely need the immediate speed). That same computer will cost half the price in less than a year (apply Moore's law).
So the speed difference between Mac and PCs is not important.
I simply enjoy the mac more because it has slightly less hassles. I don't worry about spyware or viruses (whatever the reasons you may argue). It's a bit easier to do basic tasks like listening to music or browsing the web. CS2 runs comfortably on my mac as well.
When it comes to business applications, I will always go with a PC. It's just the only way to be 100% compatible and not have to worry about updates for PCs that don't hit Macs immediately.
Finally, for customer support and "friendliness," the companies are the same. Microsoft tries hard, but can't shed its "evil" reputation. Apple, on the other hand, is getting a bit to cocky for my taste. Getting an ipod checked out at a store requires an appointment, and even with an appointment I wait over half an hour. Salespeople are sleezy and trying to stuff down your throat. I've also noticed that most of the hardware lasts about as long as the warranty. Almost everyone I know has an ipod with a crashed hard drive, which occurred 3 months after the warranty expired.
I would go with a mac for a home computer to do photo editing, web surfing, and itunes listening, but that's about it.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 01:19:50 PM · #95 |
Interesting perspective on this "feud" in today's Circuits tech commentary by David Pogue in the NY Times. I found this snippet especially revealing ...
" It makes no difference how superior Mac OS X or Linux may be; the world's I.T. staffs will switch their entire companies away from Windows the day Rush Limbaugh votes for Hillary Clinton.
After all, the I.T. people know where their bread is buttered. If Macs are indeed less trouble-prone and complex than Windows PC's, they're doomed in corporations; the last thing the I.T. guys want to do is obsolete themselves."
Message edited by author 2006-08-10 17:20:33. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 01:26:39 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
After all, the I.T. people know where their bread is buttered. If Macs are indeed less trouble-prone and complex than Windows PC's, they're doomed in corporations; the last thing the I.T. guys want to do is obsolete themselves." |
Load of crap. IT would certainly not be obsolete by the implementation of allegedly more reliable machines, nor is that the way IT people think. Lame argument.
...and let me add:
 |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 01:33:14 PM · #97 |
| Did you read the rest? Some other parts might make more sense to you ... his overall point is that there is no "war" and people should just move on with getting their work done on whatever equipment they find suitable. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 01:47:53 PM · #98 |
My current machine is a Mac, my next machine will be Mac running OSX and Win XP.
I can't wait. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 02:01:32 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Did you read the rest? Some other parts might make more sense to you ... his overall point is that there is no "war" and people should just move on with getting their work done on whatever equipment they find suitable. |
Of course I didn't read the rest. I assumed you posted his "bottom line" point, but my assumption was wrong apparently.
I wasn't referring to his position on the mac vs. pc argument anyway - just his opinion that IT guys would choose less reliable hardware / software / whatever for job security. That's like saying cops don't really want to eliminate crime. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 02:07:49 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
That's like saying cops don't really want to eliminate crime. |
The prison guard union certainly doesn't ... why do you think so many things are criminalized? |
|
