Why are Apple entering a period of hibernation?

[fhoto]

Hey, I'm new to this forum and I'll do my best not turning this thread into another "should I buy now or wait discussion", eventhough I guess that's what it all comes down to in the end anyway :P

I'm a photographer and need a laptop bad. I currently have a stationary stone age PC wich catches fire after half an hour of photoshopping.
Now, I've been checking out the powerbooks for quite a while and basically been waiting since last april that they'll transform these "state-of-the-art" machines into something that's actually close to the current state-of-the-art. As of today, I could buy a pb and probably get along fine, but they'll have to cut the price with about 30% first to get it down to a reasonable you-get-what-you-pay-for level. I'd probably spend the next months trying to get over the idea of being fooled into investing in last years technology anyway, but it'll probably do fine.

Problem being, they ain't cutting their ridiculous prices. And as if that wasn't enough, you're all telling me that it'll most likely take another 6 months until they'll bother to upgrade their hardware. And when they finally do, they'll release some first-gen trial machine wich obviously is going to be plagued by first-gen issues, right?
So this is what it all boils down to: since apple has set them and their pb line up for a year of hibernation, why bother about buying one?

And this is where I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. When I look at the current PB specs I don't see a mac, I see a modified PC. The gpu is an nvidia (difference being that dell and sony offer 256mb gmem instead of the pbs 64 and 128) just like another comp these days, it has the same so-dimms just like everybody else had a year ago (pretty much every high-end PC laptop runs DDR2 today). Are you telling me that it is the powerPC cpu on 1,67ghz/512k L2 cache/167Mhz FSB that outperforms for example dell's 2,26Ghz/2mb l2/533 FSB?
Or is it the superior effectivity of OSX versus XP that does all the difference?
And it's still worth spending more money on a powerbook?

I'm just plainly asking, why should I, today, even consider buying a powerbook when I can get a top of the line dell or sony vaio for the same money?
I've heard a lot of people talking about the "mac experience". Is that the reason why people pay more for less? Personally I think the new vaio's offer a more pleasurable using experience, but that's me.
I've also heard ppl buy PBs because of their incredible screens. I couldn't resist borrowing a friends newly bought inspiron and dragging it down to the local mac store for a comparison. The screens may have been differently configured, but my experience was that the dell screen was brighter, had the same resolution, but that the inspiron due to its brightness was less prone to reflections and the like. Bare in mind though, this was an entirely non-scientifical test. I've heard from a friend that the PB are great to work on, and can, eventhough not with the ease of a crt, be calibrated. Never tried calibrating an inspiron. The sum of the experience I'd say is that mac's screens ain't no greater than any other screen on the market today.
And, hey, if I'm after portabillity, the vaio's both weigh less and have longer battery life.


So, to sum it all up, Why should I today and for the following year even consider buying a mac laptop? I'm after a stable yet portable machine I can work on. I more or less only use photoshop.
I'll greatly appreciate to hear your honest thoughts on this, as experienced mac users. Although I'm not in much need of "PC sucks mac rocks" type of comments. THanks!


edit: forgot to mention.. dell also offers free memory upgrades this week... don't see that coming out of applestore...

[iMeowbot]

So this is what it all boils down to: since apple has set them and their pb line up for a year of hibernation, why bother about buying one?
A PowerBook or iBook are the only options right now if you want to run OS X applications natively on a notebook. If OS X isn't a big deal to you, enjoy your new PC!

[Blue Velvet]

There's no doubt that the PB line is stagnant... further speed gains were improbable given the unpromising results of G5 chip production in terms of heat and power consumption.

Listen, if you really want a Mac, you'll go and get one now or wait... if you're happy with a PC then that's cool too -- you can get one of those straight away but colour management in Windows leaves a lot to be desired, let alone its user-friendliness with peripherals and general clunkiness.

The other option is to try and pick up a refurbished PB from Apple -- good as new but cheaper.

If you genuinely think that using Windows is a more pleasurable user experience than using a Mac, then perhaps a Mac is not for you anyway.

[Euan]

Hey, I'm new to this forum and I'll do my best not turning this thread into another "should I buy now or wait discussion", eventhough I guess that's what it all comes down to in the end anyway :P
Welcome to the forums. You're comments about Apple....

they ain't cutting their ridiculous prices.
I guess not everyone seems them as ridiculous. I've read a few threads about this issue recently. You pay for what you get. If Apples were as mass-produced as PCs (and their components) I imagine Apples would come down in price.

When I look at the current PB specs I don't see a mac, I see a modified PC.
Dont' quite see it myself.

dell's 2,26Ghz/2mb l2/533 FSB?
my experience was that the dell screen was brighter
dell also offers free memory upgrades this week... don't see that coming out of applestore...
You seem to like Dells.... why not just buy a Dell? From what you say their screens are good, they are powerful and more reasonably prices.

Or do you really want an Apple?

[generik]

Welcome to the forums. You're comments about Apple....


Your, not YOU ARE.

Why? That one button mouse has made you too lazy?


I guess not everyone seems them as ridiculous. I've read a few threads about this issue recently. You pay for what you get. If Apples were as mass-produced as PCs (and their components) I imagine Apples would come down in price.



Maybe.. but I'm pretty sure not everyone sees them as reasonable either. Plus not everyone has a TWENTY percent margin either!


Dont' quite see it myself.


Oh, and please keep being delusional.

Demonstration Alpha!

Test subject A: A powermac G5

Instrumentation we've got.. a handy screw driver, oh wait, we don't need that.

*cracks open case*, let's see.. same IDE hard drives, same asus custom made mobo, same PCI slots, same DDR memory.

Sorry bud, I hate to rain on your parade, and I understand people don't like to quite look the fool, but You've been gourged upon

I don't mind paying that premium on a Mac when in the past they do have quality SCSI drives and others... but nowadays. Tell me what I'm paying for in mac hardware again? MacOS?

Hahahaha, hahahaha. You are joking right?

Hahahaha.

Say what you want about others using cheap inferior memory or less pixie dust in making their PCBs, think what you want. Oh, and what's that on your "Logic Board"? Butt ugly capacitors right? Pfft, that's so 1970s...

Maybe you should see the digital VRM modules on my dual Opteron box. Look Ma! No caps! Not a single one!


You seem to like Dells.... why not just buy a Dell? From what you say their screens are good, they are powerful and more reasonably prices.

Or do you really want an Apple?

It's irrelevant. I see Apple as just another producer of hardware. Nothing more, nothing less, no magic behind it. And judging from my Apple products I've seen.. they are good quality but nothing extraordinary either.

Please don't tell me by "thinking different" all that you are able to do is just to become another cog for a MNC's marketing agenda. Cya!

[Blue Velvet]

I see Apple as just another producer of hardware.

Except for OSX and all the other iLife & pro apps which are a far superior OS and user-experience than any flavour of Windows currently on offer... the OS is the computing experience, not the "digital VRM modules". :rolleyes:

You sound like you really know a lot about Macs. Remember, most of us came from the Windows world -- we know what we speak of.

[Passante]

Problem being, they ain't cutting their ridiculous prices.
I've seen alot of people say this but when they try to give examples of cheaper Dells or Sonys they find that they are not so cheap.

How about providing a specific example of a Sony/Dull laptop that you think is so much cheaper than a powerbook. Please provide the full specs. Most of the really cheap notebooks either weight lbs more, intergrated graphics or are 3 times the thickness of a powerbook.

Just another newbie whine.

[risc]

How about providing a specific example of a Sony/Dull laptop that you think is so much cheaper than a powerbook.

Oh God don't open that can of worms! If people don't know what makes Macs a nicer computing experience let them go buy their PCs. This has been done to death all of these threads should be locked.

[Blue Velvet]

This has been done to death all of these threads should be locked.

Normally, I would agree but in this case I do think the OP genuinely wanted some answers to his questions. This was before the troll-like n00b turned up with his incredibly intelligent and helpful contribution.

[iMeowbot]

Maybe you should see the digital VRM modules on my dual Opteron box. Look Ma! No caps! Not a single one!
There are still caps on there, or your nifty little VRMs wouldn't work. They're ceramics instead of electrolytics, but they're there all right.

[Euan]

Why? That one button mouse has made you too lazy?
I'm actually on a PC lol :D

[mad jew]

fhoto, I'd argue that if you're after a laptop with raw grunt that can churn through your Photoshop tasks with relative ease then I recommend a PC. It'll be cheaper to buy in RRP terms compared to a PowerBook with anything close to the raw CPU performance.

However, obviously there is much more to a laptop than merely the CPU. Two areas that I think the PowerBook would truly wipe the floor with the majority of PC laptops is the integrated nature of the hardware. Apple has spent a lot of time and many resources engineering a laptop with the best possible combination of different hardware out on the market. They have then gone on to write their own OS which best encompasses this hardware. As many people here have already posted, it's the OS that best justifies the slightly higher RRP of a Mac. This OS is incredible. I run PCs and Macs and can safely say that it's something you must experience and use because merely explaining its benefits will never do it justice. A PowerBook will give you adequate grunt plus an OS that is optimised for its hardware plus an OS that is intuitive, stable and easy to use.

I don't know how well you know OSX, but if possible, maybe get your hands on a PowerBook for a week or so. Seven days still won't give OSX justice, but it will hopefully give you some idea of just how great this OS is. :)

generik, I am writing this in white because it somehow seems less offensive, plus it is completely off topic. I am a self-confessed Mac fan boy which is pretty sad. However, I am perfectly comfortable with that. There is only one thing sadder than a guy obsessed with a computer OS and that is a boy, obsessed with an OS, who bothers to troll on the "oppositions" forums. I use both PCs and Macs and I know which OS I prefer. I also now know which OS you prefer. However, you have done nothing to provide me with any empathy with your bigoted response to Euan's comments. I recommend constructing a more objective response next time to properly portray your points. For more information, click here (http://www.xvsxp.com/).

[dcv]

I agree to an extent with some of the comments you made regarding the hardware. Yes, there are some better specced PCs out there for less money and this is also a reason why I hesitated before buying a PowerBook over a Vaio notebook.

However....

Or is it the superior effectivity of OSX versus XP that does all the difference?
And it's still worth spending more money on a powerbook?

.... THIS is exactly the reason why Apple can justify its prices and aging hardware components. OS X doesn't *need* the latest and greatest bits to run amazingly well.

If you want the biggest/fastest etc get a PC. If you want something that WORKS and is a real pleasure to use, buy a Mac. I did and i've never regretted that decision. In fact my only regret is not having switched sooner.

[Vinnie_vw]

Hi, second post on this forum (as I'm soon to be the proud owner of my first Apple: a 12" ibook, I thought the powerbook was overpriced too)

So basically, what I'm hearing from every Mac-fan, is that the OS makes most of the difference? Isn't OS X basically Linux, and so would running Linux on a PC (or PC-laptop) negate this argument? I know that OS X has more commercial software-support, but I could also find freeware open-office and other apps easily for Linux (or perhaps run windows-emulated software, dunno if that exists..)?

Personally, my reasons, derived from online research, for buying the iBook (not applicable for the PB) over a PC-laptop of comparable pricing (I'm paying the student-discount btw) are the following:

primary reasons:
Durability - Apple notebooks last longer;
(relatively) long battery-life - most laptops at this price last up to 3 hrs.;
(relatively) lighter;
A-brand support - most laptops with my required features and similar pricing are B-brands
secondary reasons:
dedicated video-ram - even though its only 32 mb in the IBs' case (64mb in the PB, I think), the higher but shared video-ram in PC-laptops of comparable pricing, are deceptive and inferior from what I read;
better memory-management - but if the IB hadn't recently been updated to 512 MB, I would not have bought it.
commercial software support - I really only need an office-package for writing my thesis, and a media-player for playing music

Anyway, it really depends on what you want to use the laptop for. In my case, it had to be portable and trustworthy, most of all. I believe that the iBook will meet those expections. For people, who want to do photo-editing and other processor/ram-intensive activities, I would not even recommend a mobile solution, as that will always involve a tradeoff...

[mad jew]

OSX and Linux are very different. For a start, OSX is user friendly. :p

Nevertheless Vinnie_vw, you raise some excellent points. Welcome to the mac community. :)

[Moxiemike]

Hey, I'm new to this forum and I'll do my best not turning this thread into another "should I buy now or wait discussion", eventhough I guess that's what it all comes down to in the end anyway :P

I'm a photographer and need a laptop bad. I currently have a stationary stone age PC wich catches fire after half an hour of photoshopping.
Now, I've been checking out the powerbooks for quite a while and basically been waiting since last april that they'll transform these "state-of-the-art" machines into something that's actually close to the current state-of-the-art. As of today, I could buy a pb and probably get along fine, but they'll have to cut the price with about 30% first to get it down to a reasonable you-get-what-you-pay-for level. I'd probably spend the next months trying to get over the idea of being fooled into investing in last years technology anyway, but it'll probably do fine.

Problem being, they ain't cutting their ridiculous prices. And as if that wasn't enough, you're all telling me that it'll most likely take another 6 months until they'll bother to upgrade their hardware. And when they finally do, they'll release some first-gen trial machine wich obviously is going to be plagued by first-gen issues, right?
So this is what it all boils down to: since apple has set them and their pb line up for a year of hibernation, why bother about buying one?

And this is where I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. When I look at the current PB specs I don't see a mac, I see a modified PC. The gpu is an nvidia (difference being that dell and sony offer 256mb gmem instead of the pbs 64 and 128) just like another comp these days, it has the same so-dimms just like everybody else had a year ago (pretty much every high-end PC laptop runs DDR2 today). Are you telling me that it is the powerPC cpu on 1,67ghz/512k L2 cache/167Mhz FSB that outperforms for example dell's 2,26Ghz/2mb l2/533 FSB?
Or is it the superior effectivity of OSX versus XP that does all the difference?
And it's still worth spending more money on a powerbook?

I'm just plainly asking, why should I, today, even consider buying a powerbook when I can get a top of the line dell or sony vaio for the same money?
I've heard a lot of people talking about the "mac experience". Is that the reason why people pay more for less? Personally I think the new vaio's offer a more pleasurable using experience, but that's me.
I've also heard ppl buy PBs because of their incredible screens. I couldn't resist borrowing a friends newly bought inspiron and dragging it down to the local mac store for a comparison. The screens may have been differently configured, but my experience was that the dell screen was brighter, had the same resolution, but that the inspiron due to its brightness was less prone to reflections and the like. Bare in mind though, this was an entirely non-scientifical test. I've heard from a friend that the PB are great to work on, and can, eventhough not with the ease of a crt, be calibrated. Never tried calibrating an inspiron. The sum of the experience I'd say is that mac's screens ain't no greater than any other screen on the market today.
And, hey, if I'm after portabillity, the vaio's both weigh less and have longer battery life.


So, to sum it all up, Why should I today and for the following year even consider buying a mac laptop? I'm after a stable yet portable machine I can work on. I more or less only use photoshop.
I'll greatly appreciate to hear your honest thoughts on this, as experienced mac users. Although I'm not in much need of "PC sucks mac rocks" type of comments. THanks!


edit: forgot to mention.. dell also offers free memory upgrades this week... don't see that coming out of applestore...


He probably can't justify an apple purchase after spending loads of money switching from Nikon to Canon since Nikon didn't release a 22mp FF D200 with 10-1000 f 1.0 lens with AF-S and VR.

Go over to dpreview.com and do a search for "D200" and you'll find about 20 of these posts, where you can just interchange "Nikon" for "Apple" and "Canon" for "Dell" and you'll have the same thing.

Just another troll. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Abstract]

Firstly, you're right about the hardware in many ways. However, for your Photoshop work:

1) A 256MB video NVidia GeForce 6800 Go ULTRA video card will not make Photoshop work any faster. That particular video card you mentioned on the Dell is a gaming PC (Inspiron XPS Gen 2) that costs $2378 for the 2GHz Pentium-M processor, or more money for the 2.13GHz version. It's obviously very fast, but the performance difference you see will be due to the processor, not this video card. You're paying for a lot of weird video game crap. I mean, subwoofers? Seriously?

If you're not talking about this computer, I can't find a faster Dell, or anything that comes close. I didn't through the Sony Vaio website because their laptops are ridiculously expensive for what you get, even more ridiculous than Apple prices.

**At least with IBM/Lenovo laptops, which are pricey like PowerBooks, you get what you pay for, and more. They're probably the best laptops in the world right now. Honestly.

I think you'll run PS faster on a PC laptop than on a PowerBook, but not THAT much faster, as the specs, including that video card, won't speed anything up relating to PS or almost any app that's not very high end, or video game related. The difference is the Pentium-M.

2) Apple's software and hardware work incredibly together. I know that sounds like salesman bulls***, but it's true. My Uni even bought me a Pentium IV, 3.4GHz hyperthreaded Dell Optiplex with 2GB of RAM. If I could form a cluster using 2 identical 1GHz PowerBooks, both with 1.25GB of RAM, I'm sure my Dell would still be faster. However, I still bring my PB to Uni every day. Why? Because i love it. I don't like using my Dell all that much.
Using Windows isn't horrible if you have SP2 and all the updates, but my PowerBook has always provided me with trouble-free, worry-free computing, even more-so than with Linux (SuSE). That's pretty incredible considering how often I use my computer.

I don't sit and think about anti-viruses, trojans, virus-laden emails, etc. I worry about nothing. When I use my PowerBook, I don't think about my computer at all. Why should I think about it? It's there. It's a tool. If it's too much trouble to own, that is a major turn-off for me. I don't ever worry about crashes (unless I'm using MS Word, Excel, or Safari, but Apple's Safari has been quite stable as of late).
Its like a lot of cars today. I like some VWs out there today. However, I wouldn't want to BUY one because VW has a history of producing cars with problems --- problems that require me to stop using my car for a few days. I wouldn't buy a VW for that reason.

3) The only problem I have EVER had using my Mac is with webcam instant messaging with my MSN-using friends. I' m not American and don't use AIM at all, so iChat is useless for me.

4) Every laptop maker offers at least ONE laptop with a screen as good or better than the one on the PowerBook. But many of those are the ones that use XBrite technology (or equivalent.....every company has their own name for it, it seems), and that uses a reflective display. I HATE being able to see my own reflection in the display. Give me a screen that's slightly less bright as long as my reflection isn't so noticeable. It is VERY noticeable on those laptops.

Anyway, a PowerBook will run Photoshop like a champ, although a bit slower than a PC laptop will. If it takes a PC laptop 20 seconds to do something, maybe it'll take a PowerBook 28 seconds. I don't know.

[Abstract]

Just another troll. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I wouldn't consider him a troll at all. I don't know the exact definition of a troll, but to me, a troll doesn't make any valid points at all, whereas Fhoto does.

[fhoto]

jesus, why do people get offended when you post things like this? Telling me that "You seem to like Dells.... why not just buy a Dell?" ain't helping because what I was asking is _why_ I shouldn't buy, for example a dell, instead of a pb, using dell as a mere example as it is a company wich offers pretty much the same product range as apple, and shares about the same view on performance/stabillity. My tone might have been a bit harsh, but my intention was never to lash out on how crappy mac is, quite the opposite actually. ;)

Anyway, a lot of your comments have been quite helpful. The idea that apple constructs their computers for ultimate compatibillity between its components is quite neat and is what got me interested in mac in the first place. It's a really great idea actually, that everything is ultimately optimized for eachother. Here's where a friend of mine (who btw has a major in computer engineering and programming and has worked for numerous tech supports and the like) challanged me.
I discussed this with him and he pretty much agreed that that's the case with apple... and with dell, and with ibm, and with sony... difference being that apple has turned it into a marketing strategy of uncomparable magnitude, according to him. Something wich seems quite logical.
If one is to believe this, what it boils down to is the fact that apple has the abillity to design, as mad jew pointed out, their OS after their hardware, while the PC industry has to correct their hardware setups after the available OS. Question being, do they really? I checked through the comparison you posted (http://www.xvsxp.com/) but I saw nothing about wich performs better, just wether wich had best support for whatever? Is OSX really that much better optimized for its hardware, compared to XP pro?

"If OS X isn't a big deal to you, enjoy your new PC!" - Is this what it all comes down to?

If that's the case, I really got to ask this question. Does it matter as I'll pretty much only be using one or two programs on it, both wich work just as fine on a mac as on a pc?
I'm asking this, as mad jew quite correctly guessed I have little experience with OSX.
Another question. I've percieved OSX as a huge bundle with everything integrated into eachother. Is this correct? I'm asking because the reason why I like XP is that when you first install it, it's full of crap. Thing being, you can throw out pretty much everything you don't need or want, thereby boosting the speed of it. Is this possible with OSX? Or is it unnecessary in OSX? ;)

and, yep, a stationary would be better for photoshop... but I need the mobillity.

again, thanks for the replys!

[Abstract]

Okay, pretend I didn't say anything! :eek: ;)

[Moxiemike]

I wouldn't consider him a troll at all. I don't know the exact definition of a troll, but to me, a troll doesn't make any valid points at all, whereas Fhoto does.


Any professional photographer should know that the bulletproof vest that is a powerbook is A number ONE the most important tool you can take on remote shoots. They'd also know that the color management on a Mac will far and away demolish the PC. For their work, they should also have experienced how much smooter Adobe Photoshop as well as Camera RAW run on the Mac.

The stability of a powerbook alone (or ibook for that matter), due to OS X, when taken into the field is a huge advantage. The OP also isn't aware it seems, of battery life. I think Windows lappies are improving on that end, but my Powerbook, two years on, still gets me 3 hours of downloading and image prep time in the field, and that's downloading 1 and 2 gig flash cards.

The advantages of a mac, and specifically of OS X, are well documented on Apple's site with several stories of just how well a Mac integrates into a pro photographers workflow.

And lastly, let me bring up two words again:

COLOR MANAGEMENT.

The photographers who persist to use windows, that i've seen, are often left with too bright, off color photos, 99.9% due to windows lack of any resembling professional color management. This reason alone, for me, as a professional designer and photographer, justifies the price difference for me.

And to be honest, i'd be willing to bet my 50mm prime that my reputation has been forged in large part because of qualities my work embodies that are direct results of learning and mastering the art of color management, establishing a reliable workflow and giving my clients consistent, well-toned results. The proof is in the pudding!

As a pro photographer, I don't skimp on lenses, as I know they're my best chance at a rock solid image. I might spent 4 times what you might on a 28-80 zoom or a macro lens, but in the end, the image quality is well worth the additional expediture.

In this day and age of digital photography, we see too many people worried about 4mp, 6mp, 8mp, 12mp, 16mp, 22mp, and on and on and on, so much so that they forget to realize that their work is null and void if the intagibles are ignored.

If you're a pro, and you want the color, consistency, stability and reliability that professional photographers had in their hands during the film ages, a Mac is the only real choice.

[fhoto]

you guys posted while I was writing ;)

thanks for the reply abstract. Only thing I like about the vaio's compared to the pb's is the increase in cache memory. If you look at the home computers (not the ultraslims), which weigh about the same as the PBs, they prices are pretty much the same as the pb range. Problem with them is that their battery life sucks.. :/

I'll guess I'll have to begin to believe you guys when it comes to 'the mac experience' as no one fails to mention it and really stress its importance ;)

and, btw, don't know what you mean by troll, but in case you care I've been using the same 30yr old canon for 10 years now.. :P

[Blue Velvet]

I've percieved OSX as a huge bundle with everything integrated into eachother. Is this correct? I'm asking because the reason why I like XP is that when you first install it, it's full of crap. Thing being, you can throw out pretty much everything you don't need or want, thereby boosting the speed of it. Is this possible with OSX? Or is it unnecessary in OSX? ;)

Unnecessary.

Just a fantastic suite of applications that you can install if you want or discard if disk space is tight. However, doing so will not affect the performance of the Mac.

[Moxiemike]

you guys posted while I was writing ;)

thanks for the reply abstract. Only thing I like about the vaio's compared to the pb's is the increase in cache memory. If you look at the home computers (not the ultraslims), which weigh about the same as the PBs, they prices are pretty much the same as the pb range. Problem with them is that their battery life sucks.. :/

I'll guess I'll have to begin to believe you guys when it comes to 'the mac experience' as no one fails to mention it and really stress its importance ;)

and, btw, don't know what you mean by troll, but in case you care I've been using the same 30yr old canon for 10 years now.. :P

good on ya. I have an AE-1 that performs as well as the 10d.

there's a bunch of reasons above to buy a mac. you do understand, i'm sure, that given the climate in forums these days why I would come to the conclusion that you're a troll. YOu come into a mac forum, and start bragging on why PCs should theoretically be surperior, you don't have any personal info in your profile, et. al.

Go to apple. Search for Pro Photography.

You'll fnd tons of reasons there. The people here, for the most part, don't know the pro photo guy's workflow. If that's important to you, those articles on apple.com should be your first required reading.

[Moxiemike]

index (http://www.apple.com/pro/archive/index.html#prophoto)

damico (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/damico/)
digitalfusion (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/digitalfusion/)
elins (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/elins/)
hills (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/hills/)
coran (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/coran/)
ingalls (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/ingalls/)
wagner (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/wagner/)
kalalian (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/kalalian/)

[fhoto]

Moxiemike, you make me feel like an ancient relic talking about "the film ages" :D

j/k although I still use film as much as I can I scan most of it, wich is where ps comes handy.
You're the first to mention colour management, and I take your word for it. Wich brings up another question, how good are the cinema displays? I've heard a lot of **** about the 23inch, although I've quite a lot of good things about the 20inch. But, if I can change subject completely, does anyone know how these compare to the eizo flats, in terms of colour management?
And here's a long shot...I've been using the lacie blueIV crt for a while, does anyone know how this compares to the cinema displays? ;)

[fhoto]

index (http://www.apple.com/pro/archive/index.html#prophoto)

damico (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/damico/)
digitalfusion (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/digitalfusion/)
elins (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/elins/)
hills (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/hills/)
coran (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/coran/)
ingalls (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/ingalls/)
wagner (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/wagner/)
kalalian (http://www.apple.com/pro/photo/kalalian/)

Thanks! will check it out!

[Euan]

Telling me that "You seem to like Dells.... why not just buy a Dell?" ain't helping because what I was asking is _why_ I shouldn't buy, for example a dell, instead of a pb
Apologies - was never meant to seem harsh, etc.

using dell as a mere example as it is a company wich offers pretty much the same product range as apple, and shares about the same view on performance/stabillity. My tone might have been a bit harsh, but my intention was never to lash out on how crappy mac is, quite the opposite actually. ;)
I can understand the comparison - Dells allow more ability to customise hence provide a comparison between Apple and PC with similar specs.

Anyway, a lot of your comments have been quite helpful. The idea that apple constructs their computers for ultimate compatibillity between its components is quite neat and is what got me interested in mac in the first place.
Likewise, the fact that someone may have thought about how to best design and construct in order to provide the end user with a product that will help them increase effiency and productivity.

I checked through the comparison you posted (http://www.xvsxp.com/) but I saw nothing about wich performs better, just wether wich had best support for whatever?
I don't think that's the aim... maybe I'm wrong. I think it merely aims to demonstrate how well OS X and Win XP support 100 topics but more importantly how well these are supported.

[Moxiemike]

Moxiemike, you make me feel like an ancient relic talking about "the film ages" :D

j/k although I still use film as much as I can I scan most of it, wich is where ps comes handy.
You're the first to mention colour management, and I take your word for it. Wich brings up another question, how good are the cinema displays? I've heard a lot of **** about the 23inch, although I've quite a lot of good things about the 20inch. But, if I can change subject completely, does anyone know how these compare to the eizo flats, in terms of colour management?
And here's a long shot...I've been using the lacie blueIV crt for a while, does anyone know how this compares to the cinema displays? ;)

The LaCie blue's are awesome with a Mac for CM, I had one before I got the first 17" which sucked for CM, but the 23", IMHO, is incredible. Did a shoot in a mall, took the 23" which was getting beat by sun through a skylight, and I couldn't see the screen well enough to color correct, but by knowing my white balance (digital) and applying the right curves (a nikon thing) and color profiling it, I was able to blindly get the color right.

As far as the 23 in practical apps, it's perfect. I send stuff to a variety of printers, for a glossy mag, several ad agencies and design firms including my own, as well as making prints from my epson and hp large formats and as long as I profile right, I'm able to get consistent color across the board, and a kind-of WYSIWYG color in that what I see on the screen matches within a very close color tolerance what I get in print-- and this ranges from inkjet to pro photo printing, wally-mart prints, heidelberg 6 and 8 color presses, digital indigo presses, you name it. If you take a few hours and learn profiling, you'll easily think "that extra $XXX on a mac was well spent"

[Moxiemike]

Moxiemike, you make me feel like an ancient relic talking about "the film ages" :D

hey. film ain't dead. the one thing digital still cannot do is capture the range of tones in "negative" and "print" of a properly exposed, well processed and nicely printed black and white film shot.

Hence why the AE-1 and FM are still in the stable and not the museum

[mad jew]

jesus, why do people get offended when you post things like this?


Can I apologise on everybody's behalf. We're all a bit grumpy because we were hoping for new PowerBooks at Paris but apparently they're not coming. We're a fickle lot. :(


The idea that apple constructs their computers for ultimate compatibillity between its components is quite neat and is what got me interested in mac in the first place.


This bit cannot be underestimated. Think of how well console games do with limited hardware (ignore the new ones coming out now). Optimised hardware and software, when properly integrated, is faster, more efficient and more reliable generally speaking. This is one of the points that shrinks the gap between the arguably better hardware in a top PC and the slightly worse hardware in a PowerBook.


I discussed this with him and he pretty much agreed that that's the case with apple... and with dell, and with ibm, and with sony... difference being that apple has turned it into a marketing strategy of uncomparable magnitude, according to him. Something wich seems quite logical.


True to a point, but remember the major component that Apple still has control over is the operating system. Dell, Sony and IBM still rely on Microsoft for Windows. Nevertheless, I agree Apple probably market it for more than it's worth when they're not marketing the iPod (which is pretty rare these days). :p


I checked through the comparison you posted (http://www.xvsxp.com/) but I saw nothing about wich performs better, just wether wich had best support for whatever? Is OSX really that much better optimized for its hardware, compared to XP pro?


Okay, sorry, that link was more aimed at generik but it didn't come out in white. Nevertheless, it's a great site that simply compares the two (three) operating systems and nothing else. It admits that if it tried to take into account hardware, there would be far too many complexities for it to be feasible.

Long story short: OSX is far better optimised than XP is, and with god reason. Apple has a much smaller user base and a relatively miniscule amount of different types of hardware configurations its OS can be installed upon.


"If OS X isn't a big deal to you, enjoy your new PC!" - Is this what it all comes down to?

If that's the case, I really got to ask this question. Does it matter as I'll pretty much only be using one or two programs on it, both wich work just as fine on a mac as on a pc?
I'm asking this, as mad jew quite correctly guessed I have little experience with OSX.


If you get a Mac, you will fall in love with the OS. This thread is perfect evidence of that. Of course, you don't need to be infatuated with your OS to be productive. Since you are using two apps, you are missing out on one of OSX's best features which is memory management or multitasking. Nevertheless, I don't have nearly enough experience to say whether these two apps will be very different Mac to PC but like you, I doubt they would be. As such, I say you would be happy with XP but you would absolutely love OSX. I'm not kidding, I used to be the kid at school who beat up nerds who loved computers but since I bought my first Mac, I've become one of the biggest geeks I know. (Disclaimer: sorry to all the geeks I ever beat up and sorry for the incredibly shallow and evangelical "since I went Mac" statement.)


Another question. I've percieved OSX as a huge bundle with everything integrated into eachother. Is this correct? I'm asking because the reason why I like XP is that when you first install it, it's full of crap. Thing being, you can throw out pretty much everything you don't need or want, thereby boosting the speed of it. Is this possible with OSX? Or is it unnecessary in OSX? ;)


It's not necessary. OSX is set up so that if things aren't being used, they don't still take up resources. This is one of my biggest gripes with XP. It provides the user with a multitude of tasks and processes that are unnecessary and given completely unrecognisable/uninterpretable names which still manage to use up resources.

Ideally, you could test drive an OSX system for a week but that's probably not possible. The size of this community is testament to the infatuation mac users have with their systems. It's something that is better experienced than explained. I don't want to tell you that you must switch because it sounds like you are happy with Windows. To be honest, I was also happy with Windows. OSX offers a lot more though. I'm still learning about the OS, despite having used it for almost two years straight now. Whether or not you do in fact switch, feel free to stick around in the MacRumors community. Ignore the hostile welcome you got earlier, we're not usually this grumpy. Sorry. :)

[Blue Velvet]

You're the first to mention colour management...

Not true. :p

Edit: And yes, the Lacie's are great although if your's is getting on a bit then that may be problematic.

[Moxiemike]

fhoto, you should also post the hell out of your photos in the photo threads. we need more "pro" advice and tips.... there's a lot of people interested in photo here, and it's a good thing to STW

m

[iMeowbot]

"If OS X isn't a big deal to you, enjoy your new PC!" - Is this what it all comes down to?
Truthfully? Yes, that's about it, and really it's always been that way, since long before there was a Windows or Mac OS.

If you start your purchase decision by looking at lists of hardware specs, you're going to be disappointed because you're looking at raw data, not information. Successful specification has to start at the other end. What do you want your computer to do for you? What software will do what you want to do best? What operating systems are best able to exploit the softre features that you need? Only when you have those questions answered can you reasonably start looking at hardware that will run the software you want. An Altix would look pretty cool in the living room, but it's entirely useless in spite of all its memory and raw speed because it doesn't run the software I want to use.