iMac 2.4ghz or PC core 2 quad 2.4ghz

[David Saraceno]

EOD.

Macs will always be good for the ego?

What are you talking about?

I would edit with toaster if it were reliable, solid, worked with peripherals, and wasn't prone to viruses, adware or spyware.

Are you saying that Mac users walk around telling everybody they use a Mac because it is "good for the ego."

C'mon.

Let's move on and discuss the cam.

 

[wgzn]

there are two things that keep me from moving from mac over to pc:

1. viruses, spyware and other such tomfoolery
2. there are like 4000 versions of various OS components on a PC - on a mac its install and go!

 

[pinakbeth]

1. viruses, spyware and other such tomfoolery

I agree with viruses and spyware and maybe of a little tomfoolery. Windows are somewhat bloated with alot of tomfoolery, which with a little tweaking can be eliminated. So a MAC from what I understand is not. An optimized version of Windows is the only way to go. There are ways to deal with viruse and spyware on Windows , but the technique is not always ideal for people with dire expectations. This is a good reason to go MAC

2. there are like 4000 versions of various OS components on a PC

SHHHH....Don't tell anyone about the 4000versions of various OS components in Windows . You'll just give more reason for people to dislike Windows. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHArogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Many of those components work together and alot of are useless in most circumstance. Well a MAC has alot of components too. As it has parts of LINUX from Darwin and other elements as well. But not knowing what all this stuff does to a computer inffluences people to make irrelavant decisions.

- on a mac its install and go!

Apple is a preconfigured machine , similiarly built like Dell, HP ,and other assemblers. They all shipped to the door ready to go. Dell and HP comes fully bloated like it was portrayed in commercials.

You can argue about quality but I am just replying to quote.

My computers are never install and go because of the reasons above.

 

[wgzn]

let me elaborate on my term "install and go" -

as a rule i zero the boot drive of all new machines and do a clean install from the system discs (in the case of windows, an actual windows disc - NOT the overlbloated OEM/partner discs that ship in the box).

with a mac, it pretty easy:
do you want multiple languages - YES or NO?
do you want all that "i-life" crap - YES or NO?
do you want the developer tools and all the print drivers - YES or NO?
DONE. install and get workin!

on a windows machine, just to get to the point that you can run primary functions like your dvd drive, sound, proper video, its gonna take you a full day to locate (usually on 3rd party websites) all the drivers associated with whichever random 3rd party hardware that went into that machine on THAT particular build cycle - GRRRRRRR!

 

[Mavoz]

So what about the CS3 vs Final Cut factor?

So what about the CS3 vs Final Cut factor?

Have read this thread with a great deal of interest as I ask myself this exact same question....PC or Mac....but with the specific slant....Adobe CS3 on a Mac or a PC!

frankly I'm not that interested in Final Cut...I'm sure it's great...but really the Adobe suite does everything I need...and I have invested a lot of time learning it....(as an occasional user...rather than daily user...this is significant)

now that CS3 is out with P2 support....do I install it on a Mac or a PC....

I'm actually starting to lean towards the Mac....apart from a few extra dollars...and the need to learn a new OS it seems like a good option....especially with all the positives I hear about it....


(..and the fact that we've also coined a new expression at work....of being 'Vistered'...when our Vista business work pc's complain or whinge or suffer the mysterious go slows for one reason or another)

Vista itself may clinch the deal in favour of Apple

 

[karapetkov]

Whoa:zombie_smiley:rogar-Smoke(DBG):strong words.. I don't buy into this industry-standard stuff. So what alot of studios are using FCP. Some Avid and never Adobe CS3. It does not concern me at all because it is not my goal to work for any studio. Others may have concern about working for a studio. CS3 is my studio and I wear all the hats in there.

Good point.

Obviously the Mac's hard\software has advantages, but i don't think they justify the much higher price. If Macs and PCs were the same price, then would the Mac be the definitely better option.

I'm not an expert but concerning the stability of the PC\Windows, I believe it's a question of tuning\maintenance and you will have a perfectly working machine.

And, in general, things like the Red One, the HVX and the new post-production packs change the very philosophy of post-production. I believe it's a good thing because many people can afford to have a "studio" now, but what is becoming more important is the human factor - people with abilities and skills.

People being more important than $$$ and machinery - that's a good thing! :badputer:

 

[Shibuya Oboya]

forgive me if someone covered this already, I didn't notice it.

the one major problem with the new imacs are the glossy screen. they are no good for any kind of visual work. photo, graphic, video correction.

and so far I have seen no official word of a non glossy screen.

take a look at what mac pros that Apple has in their refurbished section. you can still get apple care on them.

and for additional ram, check out ramjet and macramdirect.

 

[Concept89]

forgive me if someone covered this already, I didn't notice it.

the one major problem with the new imacs are the glossy screen. they are no good for any kind of visual work. photo, graphic, video correction.

and so far I have seen no official word of a non glossy screen.

take a look at what mac pros that Apple has in their refurbished section. you can still get apple care on them.

and for additional ram, check out ramjet and macramdirect.

I beg to differ. I'm running on a 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme iMac and I love working on it. From graphics to video, I use it extensively.

The glossy screen has nothing to do with working conditions. It's where you are lit and seated that affect it.

Glossy screen is more transparent than Matte screen, so the colors are crisper and more accurate. While it does attract more glare than Matte screen does, I have not been bothered by it.