Mac or PC

[Hitman]

In the long run - the Windows OS will prevail.

Look at what happened to Apple when Steve Jobs left the company a few years ago...

 

[jopel]

In the long run - the Windows OS will prevail.

Look at what happened to Apple when Steve Jobs left the company a few years ago...

Steve will return to his villa and play golf, whereas Bill Gate will continue to give aways his money for good cause. :bsmilie:

 

[firewater]

Mac running on OS X is much most smooth compare to PC running on windows vista.

I still like my Windows XP.

 

[dorts]

Mac running on OS X is much most smooth compare to PC running on windows vista.

I still like my Windows XP.

Vista is :nono:.

Let's see what Windows 7 will be like...

 

[dorts]

hmm..let me see, spaces. expose, no virus?, boot up in less than 60 secs?, widgets? motion sensor?, accelerometer? cool applications? and o yeah, I CAN OPERATE WINDOWS OS ON A MAC, CAN I OPERATE A MAC OS IN A PC? NO dude, do more research before talking like you know everything. :bsmilie:

Erm. I think you need more research.

You CAN have OSX on PC. Ever heard of OSx86? But of course, you wouldn't want to run it permanently. So please... My XP boots in less than 60 sec.

You don't need caps either.

Edit: Hmm. Someone deleted his post? :dunno:

 

[squall]

colour management is built into the OS and is more robust on a Mac, and if you are shooting for the creative industry, we are mostly using macs and you will be more sure that what you see on your screen will be what we see on our screen. if you understand colour management

True, the industry is traditionally mac.

However, if you colour manage with ICC profiles, it makes no difference whether you are on a PC, Mac, 1980s Silicon Graphics machine etc. That is the power of ICC profiling.

However, the screen matters because when you are editing colors, it is often on the basis of "mark-one eyeball", So if you use an el-cheapo monitor, although you are profiled, the chances of an out-of-gamut colour being misrepresented on screen is higher.

In this respect, the Apple stand alone monitors are very good (that is why you pay 1K for 20in!). The"best" that is easily available for consumers are the Eizo Nanaos (Cathay) but they are even more pricey (1.4-1.6K entry) because they have built in hardware colour LUT (Look-Up-Table). BTW, Apple monitors are standard DVI so they work 100% with PCs. Apart from salivating at the Eizos, IMHO, the Apple stand-alone monitors are the way to go.....regardless what your CPU is...

Ohh....apple monitors in the MB, MBP and iMac are not in the same league as their stand-alones.

 

[kodeiko]

For what's worth regarding wawasan's deleted post, here are a few points that you should NOT be considering as major points when doing a Mac vs Windows:

1. Virus issue: Seriously, it can be avoided, enough said.
2. Startup time: My Windows XP installed 1 year 8 months ago boots up well under 60 seconds, I'm thinking about ~30s cold boot.
3. Stability issues: My Windows XP was able to maintain uptime up to 4months+ without instability and I rebooted it because of Windows update. Btw, you need to reboot for updates too, and Mac can freeze too, believe it or not.

You should consider your needs. I find Mac interface more intuitive with the Dock and keyboard shortcut(cmd+c, cmd+tab wins ctrl+c,alt+tab any day btw), and yes Spaces and Expose are great out of the box without additional downloads unlike Windows.

Just thought I should point some personal experience out before mac fanboys start spreading their seeds around.

 

[AReality]

I show off a Macbook when i'm outside.
But deep down inside, a Vista machine is my main tool.