iMac vs. PC

[icefan]

Hey guys, I am a long-time PC user, and still am. However, I am thinking about buying an additional computer, one that I plan on using just for creative works (audio processing, video editing, etc). I hear that Macs are better for this type of work. Is this true? If so, why would it be better if you could just buy the right software for whichever computer you own?

 

[skibby]

I use both PCs & Macs. Although I definitely prefer Macs, it really does depend on the software you want to use. The software I like best, and use the most, is made for Macs. Although you can run PC software on Macs now, it often doesn't work as well as it does on PCs, but I like the ease of Macs. Okay, I'm also a sucker for the amazing design.

I like having one of each.

 

[skibby]

I always use my Mac when I'm on the net. I used to encounter occasional problems, but I haven't had any problems in a very long time.

 

[Leidian]

I was just about to post this very same thread! I've love to hear everyone's opinions on the Mac vs. PC thing. I currently have a PC and will be getting a new computer sometime soon (I hope) - it seems like a good idea to switch to Mac. So I'm going to modify the question if that's okay...

Mac Users -
What is your BIGGEST complaint about the Mac system that isn't an issue with PC's?
Anybody made the switch and regretted it?

 

[skibby]

Leidian, you're probably going to get some impassioned responses from both sides. I'm a switcher, I really only use my PC because I couldn't be bothered transferring all of the MS software that I still use for work. I honestly can't think of a single thing that was better in PCland.

 

[NHsam]

Life long PC advocate. Got a macbook pro when the gateway laptop died back in july, just because i could run both Windows and OSX. Purchased Office for Mac through the employee purchase plan and for the most part haven't looked back at the PC side. Bought a refurb iMac, got it yesterday, out of the box, customized a bit, on the net in < 1hour.
[Ironically, I was able to get the gateway laptop fixed]

 

[_AJ_]

Go into a shop try out Vista try out OSX then make a decision on which one you like best

 

[Leidian]

Life long PC advocate. Got a macbook pro when the gateway laptop died back in July, just because i could run both Windows and OSX.

I'm totally hijacking this thread....but now my question is about the ability to run both OS's. Is that standard or did you have to buy some crazy software?

Thanks so much for the comments so far - it's been a real help!

 

[icefan]

Hey, thanks for all the replies so far. Would you say the software works faster? I mean, let's say you buy a piece of software & you buy both the pc & mac versions. Will one work better on the mac?

 

[Nobodys_noone]

Are Macs better for graphic design?

 

[hotatlboi]

I'm totally hijacking this thread....but now my question is about the ability to run both OS's. Is that standard or did you have to buy some crazy software?

Thanks so much for the comments so far - it's been a real help!

You need a copy of windows but that's it. You can download a free program from Apple that allows you to then dual boot between windows and os x. Or you can buy Parallels, that does cost money but it's a more elegant solution since it allows you to run windows inside os x without having to restart.

 

[rotary]

If you're an advanced computer user, it really doesn't matter which platform you use. You'll be able to find and download the right software on a PC with no problem. Mac is more user friendly for those unfamiliar with the way PC's operate, as it's a little more straightforward and "as is."

If you manage to use XP without problems, there is no need to switch over to OS X just for creative purposes.

I'm totally hijacking this thread....but now my question is about the ability to run both OS's. Is that standard or did you have to buy some crazy software?

Thanks so much for the comments so far - it's been a real help!

Apple released a beta program (which is free) named bootcamp which allows XP to be installed on a partition, and run just as it would on any other laptop. You hold down the alt key at startup and are asked which operating system you want booted. It's extremely easy to set up, but only works on the newer intel-based macs. Older ones need to use emulators that run XP within OSX, but it's a lot slower.

 

[hotatlboi]

As someone who uses a Mac personally but works in IT (i.e. windows) support. I'm very familiar with both.

Windows has it's place, more specifically, as an enterprise system on a properly managed network, it does all right. For personal/home use however, I definitely prefer the Mac. Apple just gets it in terms of their design/ease of use/features especially in the creative field, while Microsoft still struggles mightily. It took Microsoft 6 years to release one OS update that was mostly a huge security overhaul while Apple released 4 in that same period, which provided many features still not even in Vista.

To me, the design philosophy of Apple's operating system is vastly superior to Windows. It's done in such a way that the user generally doesn't need to know too much about how things are working behind the scenes, it just gets out of the way and lets you focus on what you're trying to do. In contrast I find that Windows frequently gets IN the way of doing things and it takes more time to sort out exactly how to get something to work.

Another thing to consider is security. There are no viruses that target the Mac, and there has not been a single OS X virus in its 6 year history. There is no need to run an AV program, or a spyware program, etc. None of that exists on the Mac. Now, with the proper software and setup Windows can be kept clean too, but the average home user is usually not technically component enough to configure things in a way that will avoid all of the problems.

About the only area where Windows is clearly still superior is gaming. Most of the major games (WoW, etc.) are available for the Mac, but the majority of the smaller titles are still for Win only (and will likely remain so).

To the OP, for creative pursuits, the Mac is very strong in that area. iLife (iMovie/iTunes/iPhoto/iDVD/etc) is the best set of consumer digital media apps I've used on any platform, and if you want to do more high end stuff Apple's pro apps (Final Cut pro/Logic Audio/Aperture/etc) are the best in their space too. Unlike the consumer market (where Microsoft's products have more users simply because of the size of Windows' desktop market share), Apple's products dominate the pro creative market. Final Cut Pro is the de facto standard in the professional video editing world.

Now, if you've used Windows for your whole life, it will take a little getting used to a Mac to be able to really appreciate it, as there are definitely some differences. However, I think if you read the accounts of people who have done it, very few have gone back to windows. That's not to say Windows can't work for someone. Many people have no problem with it, and have never really had a reason to use anything else. If that's you then there's probably no compelling reason to switch to the Mac, but if you are looking for a better alternative to Windows, the Mac (and OS X) is a very good choice.

 

[hotatlboi]

Are Macs better for graphic design?

"better" is kind of a subjective thing.

Photoshop and most of the other standard graphic design apps are available for both, and function mostly the same under either, so it really comes down to which system in general you like better and which works better for you.

That said, it's well known a majority of professional graphic designers use Macs, and it's been that way for many years, so I guess you could say that a plurality of that industry finds the Mac works better for them.

If you're using the same apps though, I don't really see one being that much better than the other.

 

[_AJ_]

As someone who uses a Mac personally but works in IT (i.e. windows) support. I'm very familiar with both.

Windows has it's place, more specifically, as an enterprise system on a properly managed network, it does all right. For personal/home use however, I definitely prefer the Mac. Apple just gets it in terms of their design/ease of use/features especially in the creative field, while Microsoft still struggles mightily. It took Microsoft 6 years to release one OS update that was mostly a huge security overhaul while Apple released 4 in that same period, which provided many features still not even in Vista.

i am sorry mate but that is total BS

 

[hotatlboi]

i am sorry mate but that is total BS

ok, care to elaborate on that?

XP came out in 2001, Vista in 2007, that's 6 years. Many of the features originally planned for it (WinFS, Monad, pc synchronization, secure computing base, etc) were dropped because development on the security aspects was taking too long and consuming most of the development effort. Of course it does have new features, not disputing that, but pretty much all of them were available in OS X before Vista was available.

I wasn't trying to come across as a Mac fanboy/troll, just stating the facts.

 

[_AJ_]

ok, care to elaborate on that?

XP came out in 2001, Vista in 2007, that's 6 years. Many of the features originally planned for it were dropped because development on the security aspects was taking to long. Of course it does have new features, not disputing that, but pretty much all of them were available in OS X before Vista was available.

I wasn't trying to come across as a Mac fanboy/troll, just stating the facts.

yes but the thing is that security on vista is superior to that on OSX the biggest problem for microsoft is market share htey basically own the market ATM therefore if your a hacker are you going to try and disrupt 2-5% of the market or 95%

also time machine seems like a copy of windows system restore and shadow copy plus spotlight search was shown in a build of vista more than a year before it was in OSX and was downloadable for xp before OSX released it

everybody copys/borrows from others most original ideas come from 3rd party's and then incorperated like that coverflow in itunes

 

[_AJ_]

No offense, but everytime I see posts like this, it's like fingernails on the blackboard to me.

This is such a common myth in the computer world, and it just won't die, even though there is not the slightest bit of truth to it.

Mac/Unix/Linux OSs are architecturally very, very different from Windows. It is the inherent architecture of Windows which makes it susceptible to infection, not it's popularity. The architecture of *nix OSs have their problems, but they are inherently much, much more secure than Windows.

For example, one of the most common ways to infect a Windows PC is via some malware included in an email attachment. To acquire an infection via an email attachment in Linux, the user would have to open the email, then open the attachment. Then he would have to save the attachment under a different name and grant that file permission to run as an executable. Then, he would actually have to launch that file as an executable. In Windows, merely opening the attachment to read it will infect you, since opening attachments in Windows automatically launches them as executable. This remains true of Vista as it was with XP, Win 2K, Win 98, Win 95, etc.

This is just one tiny, tiny, tiny example of the architectural differences between Windows and *nix OSs. And to say that Vista is "more secure" than OS X is patently absurd. I am no Mac fanboi, but *nix architectures (including OS X) are massively more secure than Vista, simply because their architectures were designed from the ground up with securty in mind. Vista was not, as it is a modification of the Win 2003 Server kernel. You can argue that *nix OSs are less convenient to use or poorly supported, but please don't spread nonsense about Vista being "more secure". Despite Vista's improvements over XP, it remains one of the most vulnerable OSs to infection in common use today.

fine go hack in to vista then if its so crap

what about the user account control in vista

 

[hotatlboi]

yes but the thing is that security on vista is superior to that on OSX the biggest problem for microsoft is market share htey basically own the market ATM therefore if your a hacker are you going to try and disrupt 2-5% of the market or 95%

T-rexx already explained why that is a ridiculous claim, so I won't go into detail on it. I'll just say that most of the major problems in computer security today (viruses, botnets, spam, dos attacks) are still caused in some part by the horribly broken security of Windows. OS X, while not perfect (no system is completely secure) has had a pretty good security record since day 1.

People often use the market share argument, but it's a flawed one. If your software is secure, it's not going to matter how many people use it. Whenever I hear that argument I point out the web server market. Apache (not Microsoft's IIS) is the dominant software in web servers, and yet it is not the victim of thousands of viruses and remote exploits.

also time machine seems like a copy of windows system restore and shadow copy plus spotlight search was shown in a build of vista more than a year before it was in OSX and was downloadable for xp before OSX released it

everybody copys/borrows from others most original ideas come from 3rd party's and then incorperated like that coverflow in itunes

yeah, I totally agree that everyone copies everyone else and anyone who doesn't realize that doesn't really get it. Microsoft has done a fair bit of copying as well. For example, certain parts of the Vista UI look a lot like OS X.

I don't really care who copies who, I just happen to think that Apple implements most of their ideas (regardless of whose the original concept was) in a more intelligent way than most everyone else.

 

[hotatlboi]

the Internet, being built around Windows

I know this isn't really what you were focusing on and it doesn't change your point, but I just wanted to say that I think this is an idea many people have that leads to a negative view of any non-Windows system for possibly the wrong reasons.

The internet was not built around Windows. It was built around open standards and protocols that are supposed to be accessible and usable by any device connected to it, whether that be a windows pc, a Mac, a linux box, a mobile phone, a PDA, etc etc. Unfortunately since Windows is so widely used some people just implement the easiest solution that relies on a windows only feature.

I consider it the fault of the website operator if they intentionally choose a technology that will not work on anything more than one type of system, and not the fault of the other architectures. 99+% of all websites work fine with any kind of system, and that's how it should be. It's the responsibility of the site developer to make compatibility a goal if that's important to them.