Sorry, I am not aware of this mouse issue? I know that the mouse that comes with the Mac isn't very good (same things goes with anything you get from dell) but you can still attach any USB mouse to a Mac and it would work fine, right?

Stefan

If you read past my first sentence in that paragraph I am talking about people new to computers in general and not nessasarily only people visiting these forums...

Many Do-It-Yourself-ers tend to go with Win due to the customizeability of that platform. But DIYs (and computer savvy DIYs) are a small portion of the artistic/photographic crowd. Most people don't know a terrible amount about computers and easily get "sticker-shock" as they don't fully understand the value of a system.

Also the cost benefit of going windows depends on your setup. If absolute high-end is the game (dual CPU for example) then the Mac can actually be cheaper. Mid (where most photogs land) and low-range (no pro-photographers land here) the WinPC has the price advantage.

64-bit PS? That's on Macintosh and with the release of Tiger it'll be true 64-bit (not just partial).

You'll have to wait untill WinXP 64 comes to the PC. WinXP 64-bit is currently in RC 2.

Also:
* There is no 128-bit Itanium.
* 64-bit computing would not increase the heat produced by the chip in any significant way. It only increases the instructions the chip can run (very simplified).

I have had so many virus problems with my VIAO table top computer I switched to a Mac G4 running OSX 10.3.3. I am running Virtual PC on it
because I need to run word 2000 on it for a very small and modest business venture I am engaged in. I am hoping that I would have to access the Internet in Virtual PC to get a virus that affects Virtual PC. I only access the Internet from OSX. Am I living in a fools paradise or am I correct in my assumption? Any one have any difinative answer to this question.

Robert

I see what your saying

I currently use a Mac 12" Aluminum 1.33 GHz G4 PowerBook running OS X 10.3.7, sometimes attached to a 19" Samsung SyncMaster 192MP display when I want a larger and better view.

I also have a 2.8 GHz Intel PC running XP, but seldom use it unless I have no choice (i.e. syncing my PDA) as I still prefer the Mac for its ease of use and greater security.

I first got involved with computers in 1966 when I learned to program and use them and hated them for their nonintuitive complexity until I saw my first Mac in 1985 and immediately bought one. I now support both Mac and Windows because competition is good for us all and look forward to the day when Linux truly competes.

It was increased to 6GB of DDR2 RAM within days of my taking delivery because I hadn't realised the motherboard was capable of 8 Gb of RAM and that the company that assembled the computer for me had started advertising 2GB sticks of RAM in the period between my ordering the computer and their delivering it. They were prepared to swap 2x1GB of the 4 sticks for 2x2GB, for the price difference, giving me a total of 6GB. I would have got the full 8GB if I could have found any reference to a benifit in Photoshop, on the net or at Adobe. Apparently 8GB on a Mac is of some benefit, but not with Windows.

Now if only ColorEyes had a 64bit driver for my DTP94, this system would be fully functional  :D .

I'd apreciate if you could tell me what computer you use for photoshop. In case you use more then one, please pick the one that you use most or prefer using.

I would like to refrain from turing this into a flame war, but I would apreciate if you told me how do you find your computer now (good/bad/planning on getting a new one) and why you picked that one as opposed to something else.

Thank you all for your time.

Stefan

Agree and agree!

Glad to see I'm not alone on the mouse issue. About time it was aired! ;-)

Seriously though, it's horses for courses. The decision makers of the digital image world have, for the most part, been using MACs since a time when choosing the competition simply wasn't a consideration. Those of us who came to the party a little later, often as in my case requiring the use of other very PC-oriented software, have been lucky that the playing field is now a lot more level.

But, you pays your money and you takes your choice, as we say around here.

D.

ps. still perfer my mouse though! ;-)

Another reason for some of us to stick with PCs...

As pointed out, the office market uses PCs much more than Macs.  I work in an office (not photography-related) that uses only PCs, so that's what I'm forced to use there.  It would drive me nuts to switch back and forth between different operating systems constantly, having to remember the differences between them and change my manual reactions to match, so I use a PC at home too for consistency.

Lisa

Mmm.  An additional 2s/image for 1500 images would get you close to an extra hour.  In that case, buy the fastest you can, if you can't batch enough of the work.

Maybe 64 bit port of Photoshop running on a 64 or 128 way Itanium system?  Of course, the power requirements and air conditioning to run the system adds to the cost ...

Giles

First off, why did you buy VPC to run Word 2000 when youy could have bought the full version fo Word for OSX for less?

Anyhow, if you were to get a virus on the mac that is geared for Windows it won't do you any harm unless you get the virus through VPC in which case it'll only effect Windows within VPC. You still could however get a virus that is cross-platform or made for Unix or even contribte to the spread of Windows-based viruses.

I love macs, who are you preaching to!  I'm just talking about people that specifically switch because of the reasons I mentioned...reasons that have nothing to do with the inhearent platform

'Oh, I had blue screens and crashes, and got infections, oh, I couldn't deal with a PC anymore, so I went MAC'.  That's very common to hear.  And it just means the user didn't know what they are doing, and got infected.  When MAC virii start spreading more like they do for the PC< those type of users will be back in the same boat...'oh, my mac kept crashing and getting infected, I can't take it anymore, I went to (linux?  LOL)'

Get it?

Linux could and would truly compete if vendors like Adobe would release apps like Photoshop for the platform.  For some reason, there is a misconception that if a commercial application is released to the Linux platform it somehow is forced into the GPL.  This is maddening, and quite frankly, I see Microsoft's hegemonic hand in this.  After all, Microsoft has led the charge in the computer world for some time to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about Linux, because they know it is a better performing platform and as an open platform they could not control as they have Windows.

I agree about the Mac's inherent advantage in ease of use, and I have a collection of Macs dating back all the way to the same time you do.  Every now and again, for fun, I will fire up an old 128 and play with it -- and the amazing thing is the relative consistency back to the very beginning.

My only problem with Apple is the extreme premium they charge for hardware.  For me, the decision came down to purchasing a dual G5 or a 400mm VR lens -- and since at the end of the day, the print cares not one whit about what computer platform edited and printed it, I went the cheaper route.  When it comes to glass for the camera, the print does indeed show the quality of the lens.  Seems wiser to me to put my money there.

However, if Apple ever comes out with a truly competitive price/performance option, I will happily resume using their products.

Sounds like a sweet system Ray!

Henrik

I recently got a Macintosh G4. I have been using windows based IBM clones for more years than I care to remember. Recently my latest pc cought a virus or probably a few viruses and I completly rebuild the whole C drive but a few days later it would be infected again, I heard that the Mac platform did not have these problems so I switched. I am running Photoshop CS and it runs nice. I did have some programs and data pertainig to a very small business endeavor so I put a copy of Virtual PC running Windows XP on the Mac. This is a hassle but at least I can still use the Mac to run PC software. So far no viruses as I do not access the Internet from Virtual PC but only from the Mac OSX side. When or if I ever migrate totally to the Mac I will remove the Virtual PC software and never look back.

I am a happy Mac er  :D  and not so happy PC er  :p

If you have an Apple store near you, pay them a visit and see for yourself. As for the price/performance advocates any true comparison must be done by comparing machines which are identical in specs. Once you do that the price difference is minimal.

The market share of Win and Mac goes back to the early days of the platforms. MS gambled on the buisness market and Apple gambled on the educational market figuring that if people were learning computers on the mac they'd buy a mac. It didn't work out that way; MS gambled correctly...

As for Photographers going Windows, I think it's due to cost and ignorance (generalizing- not neccsarily on this site alone). Many photographers are used to film and never had to deal with computers. They are now switching to digital and suddenly need a computer. They get a little freaked by the initial costs of things ("I want quality that matches my MF but $1500 for a camera!?" is something I hear a bunch) and see that PCs are alot cheaper than Macs and so they buy PC unaware that they'd probably be better off with a more new-user friendly platform.

Oh, My current system:
Dell 4400
Intel P4 1.6Ghz
1GB ram
GeForce4 Ti 4400
Dual monitors
Logitec MX700 mouse

My next system will definatly be a Mac.

... erm, a year ago it would have been a year out of date (or am I missing something?)


As for OSX viruses: what are they? When did they surface? How are they transmitted?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm not about to suggest it'll never happen (there were a handful for the Classic MacOSs, for example). I'm not suggesting I'm an expert by any means. But I genuinely want to know, as I'm unaware of the existence of even one that affects OSX. I do spend quality time investigating occasionally (although I haven't gone on a proper hunt for a few months now).

Outside of a few proofs-of-concept that never went any further than that (and were quickly addressed by Apple), the closest thing to a virus that I am aware of is a "zombie" script for OSX which can do all sorts of truly hideous things to the machine it's installed on. I mean really frightening stuff.. But it's not a virus (and is even discussed on the forum from whence it came as being more 'nifty' than 'useful' due to the hoops one must jump through to get it working). It requires extensive physical access to the computer, the open-firmware password, an admin password, and it's not self-replicating. A large number of Windows trojans put this thing to shame in terms of both features and ease-of-use - not to mention installed base!

Besides, with that level of access to the machine, they can do anything they want. Give up. If you can manage to get this thing installed on your box without your knowledge, well... you probably won't find THIS cartoon very amusing either.

The next biggest threat to OSX that I can see would be to people running Virtual PC (which for those who don't know is a Microsoft product that allows you to install and run Windows on the Mac). I guess this could be considered splitting-hairs, but it's a bona-fide way to make all kinds of viruses run on modern Apple hardware, and they'll do all the nasty things to your Virtual PC partition/install that they can do to the x86 machines they were initially coded for. Performance will be lacklustre compared to running them on native hardware, however These are still Windows viruses affecting Windows though, so does this even count? Who runs Windows without AVS and the joy that is "Windows Update Mondays" anyway?

About the only valid way I can see to run a genuine virus on your Apple hardware under OSX (and again: I'm soliciting updates to my level of understanding here), would be to acquire one of the many macro viruses written for Microsoft Word.. Needless to say, this is not because of a flaw in the OS's security architecture.

Lastly, I can't think of a piece of adware/spyware for the MacOS that's any more threatening than RealPlayer, and I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who would strongly disagree with that classification. Can someone point me to something worse though? Fact is, I really don't consider spyware or adware to be a real threat to any platform, annoying and sneaky as it may be. But once it becomes installable without user input it moves into virus or trojan territory, does it not?

User negligence is a treat to any and all computer systems. Need to rid your life of spyware or adware? Follow best practice and stop installing it

In the PC world that's known as mouse acceleration, configurable in the mouse settings. See, we're not so different after all .

Let me admit my biases straight out. I've used Macs for 20 years, and I prefer them strongly for my own use. I've also worked as  both a PC and a Mac systems guy, and have built a number of PCs. I can't stand advertising, spyware or shoot 'em up games (I am more sensitive than most to dancing ads and the like). I have always preferred the Mac OS to whatever version of Windows was current at the time, but I certainly like some flavors of Windows much more than others (Windows 2000 was my all-time favorite, and I don't like XP).
   One thing to consider is that upper-end Macs are better built than MOST PCs. The Power Mac G5 is a comparable design to an upper end Dell Precision or the HP dual CPU workstations. These machines (whether Mac or PC) are a whole different level of quality from the average desktop PC-just look at the cooling, the way they're put together, the attention to detail throughout.  The Mac is actually slightly LESS expensive than its competition in similar configurations.
   A legitimate beef against Apple is that they don't offer a whole lot of choice below that level (if you have your own favorite monitor, Apple's offerings jump from the Mac Mini to the Power Mac workstations). Apple DOES tend to aim its machines right at what a photographer would want, while any powerful Wintel box (except for the aforementioned workstations, and also servers) will be aimed straight at gamers, with quite different performance optimizations!
   If you can afford a Power Mac, it's probably the cheapest route to a really top Photoshop machine. PowerBooks are among the nicest notebooks out there (but, again, they're comparable to top-end PCs in pricing and Apple offers less choice at lower levels-although the iBooks are very credible).
   Windows offers a lot more choice, especially if you're willing to build your own (essentially the only way not to pay for gaming-centered features). Remember that you'll be dealing with buggy, spyware and virus laden Windows XP (it's a shame Microsoft no longer offers Windows 2000, which was much more stable than XP). It may be worth it to many people to bite the bullet and buy a Power Mac even if you don't care about the build quality, just to avoid buying $300 worth of partially effective virus, spyware, ad and spam blockers.
    Of course, if you don't have a monitor you're attached to, Apple offers many more options (if you're in the market for a nice single processor system, Apple will gladly sell you one with a 20 inch LCD for under $2000-they just won't let you decline the LCD and save a lot of money, because it's part of the computer).
   The one thing that would change this equation is if you also like games. Games just don't work as well on Macs, and, if this matters, you have two choices-Windows or two computers. The same, sadly, holds for using Windows 2000 to get around some of the problems with XP-2000 is nice, but most games won't run. Since I never touch games, I don't care, but anybody who does care needs to consider this and probably just use XP (being careful about the spyware, etc...)

                                  -dan

Mac Dual G5 2 gigahertz, OS 10.3.7

But then I have been using a Mac since 1984

Dave S

I use an AMD-powered PC with 1.5gb RAM running Win XP with more gadgets hanging off of it that I can remember.   If your view is that Macs are more reliable than PC's, I'd say its not true, provided you use good hardware.  The problem with PC's is variability in quality of the hardware.  Buy decent kit, and its rock solid and reliable.  My Win XP PC has never crashed.  Not once.   The consensus referred to that Macs are more reliable than PC's  is based on books written mainly by Mac users and to be fair, it may have been true at one time, but it has not been the case since Windows 2000, in my view.

We run a stock library from another PC.  

Buy what suits you.  Truly, the differences are now down to personal preferences, not performance or reliability.

Quentin

PS, yes I agree on the mouse issue  :D

I just went through a PC upgrade (January 2005). Hand built from scratch. Very satisfied, whisper quiet, excellent PSCS performance. I backup photo files to replaceable IDE hard drive. DVD backup is too much fuss.

Motherboard = MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum
CPU = AMD Athlon 64 (939) FX53 2.4GHz
Ram = 4GB (OCZ PC3200 Perf. DC - 2x1024mb x2)
Operating System = Windows XP Pro

4 SATA ports on motherboard:
Hard Drive = SATA Western Digital 120 GB (boot drive)
Hard Drive = SATA Western Digital 250 GB (current year photo files & PS scratch drive)
CD/DVD Rom = SATA Plextor PX-712SA/SW 12x DVD+RW

2 IDE sockets on mother board:
Hard Drive (replaceable for backup) = IDE Western Digital 120 GB
CD/DVD Rom = IDE Pioneer 106 DVD+RW

I run two monitors (2 x Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 20” CRT), each with it’s own card (both use same driver):
AGP Video Card = MSI/nVidia GeForceFX5200 128MB
PCI Video Card = MSI/nVidia GeForceFX5500 128MB

Power Supply = Antec Neopower 480W ATX2.0 PCI-E
CPU Cooling = Thermalright XP-90 Heatsink
Case = GlobalWin YCC-61F1 Full-Tower

ps: MAC is a religion. If you believe, you believe. I don't.

I disagree. If you're used to Mac, it's easier than Windows, but if you learned computers on Windows machines, Mac OS is not particularly intuitive to figure out, and there is no compelling reason to switch. And if you can get better Photoshop performance for 2/3 the cost, what's ignorant about using the Windows platform?

First, the base G5 is 1499, not 1899.

Second, it has the following components that your PC might not:

(1) Superdrive and Apple's DVD creation sofware
(2) Firewire 800
(3) Built in airport extreme
(4) Optical audio in and out
(5) A suite of software.
(6) Native dual digital monitor support (no special or secondary video card required)

When we spec machines we have to be careful to really include everything. That's the only point I was making.

Has the world of gaming anything to teach us about choice of processor/graphics card?

After all, at the front end, pretty much everyone is using Photoshop. Right?

So, shouldn't the very "anorak" world of gaming offer some insights into choice of hardware?

Just wondering......

There's a discussion on that very topic here>
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/35516/

I'd be interested to here the views of those in the know.

D.

My point was for you to be more diplomatic. I know you weren't implying that I lied but the immediate opposite of the statement "not true" is "lie." Due to the striped down nature of text-communication you leave interpretation of such bold remarks to the person reading. "Not true" can easily be mis-interpreted and lead pointless hostility. "Not fully accurate" (or something like that) is much more diplomatic, more productive, and represents what you mean far better. Even "Not accurate" would be a vast improvement over "not true."

That's what I was getting at in a not-as-direct way (I admit I did not communicate it that well).

As for the PC stuff what I said is not a strawman argument by any means. What you have said about a profesional enviroment is very accurate (I used to work in such an enviroment) but I am clearly not talking about that enviroment. I am talking about the average user. Most people (photograhers included) use their computers for a multitude of things.

Profesional or not, people install software to do what they need beyond just photography, people install trial software to see if they will benefit from it, they install software that makes things more convenient or pleasant and they install updates and upgrades to that software. All this can and does lead to the computer acting up as it ages. It does not matter how much you maintain it, it will eventually degrade in performance and reliability and it will sometimes begin to act "odd" or "quirky" (there really is no better way to describe it). Most of this isn't always very noticeable when it's happening but becomes very evedent after a fresh instalation. The sevarity and time-frame this occures depends on the situation. It may never become a problem or it may become a problem a month after you buy the machine. It all depends.

To think that most users can or should mimick a controlled IT enviroment is just unrealistic and naive.

You missed something. The test was done one year ago before the G5 was released. Thus it's irrelavance today since technology for the Mac has advanced a some since then.


I'm not going to spend much time on the Mac virus thing. A simple Google search and a spare 10 minutes will net you plently of info.

Basically there are several cross-platform vireses that exist, viruses/worms that are ment to attack Unix/apache/samba/etc (which OSX is built on and has installed), and many viruses can spread from macs even if they can't damage them.

As has been said already, they do exist, although they are rare.

Malware Myths and Misinformation, Part One:
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1695

I admit I'm running on old systems: a PC with PIII 450Mhz and an Apple Powerbook on 233Mhz.
I've used PCs for years so I admit it's always a bit of a struggle going onto the Mac (like how do I find 'task manager'?). One day I need to upgrade at least one of these machines and at present it would certainly be the PC.
Basically what swings it for me is the huge amount of support and software out there for the PC. I would like to support Apple because I believe competition is always good for an industry, but when it comes down to it, if I have a problem with my PC I can usually find an answer in 10 minutes, while a problem on my Mac usually takes a few hours to resolve.
So many things just aren't supported on the Mac or have 'limited' support. I'm not just using the machine for PS work, the bottom line is that sites and facilities will always work for PCs but may or may not work for Macs (in many corporate environments you can forget using a Mac).

Anyway, I admitted my bias from the start - but for me it's the PC.

I recently priced a top of the line Dell 670 with a top of the line Mac G5 (both dual processor with similar amounts of RAM etc) and they were within several hundred dollars of eachother. On a 5500-6000 dollar computer set-up this is insignificant, indicating that arguments about uncompetitive Apple hardware costs are not always correct.

Reality check!

A few hundred dollars are still enough to get you a long way to an upgrade on either system, a lens upgrade, a new bicycle, a few haircuts and several crates of beer, regardless of how much you're spending. (And I don't care whether the Mac or the Dell was cheaper.)

I've read similar reasoning in other threads in this forum, but I still think it's ludicrous when people write things like "oh, when you're spending ten thousand dollars, another thousand doesn't matter".

Everybody has a budget limit. That extra dozen, hundred, thousand or hundred thousand might just be what pushes you over that limit.

End of reality check.

I have the experience of recently switching from a Dell pc with XP-pro to a dual-processor G5 Mac.  The pc was a mess- I experienced many blue screen crashes during normal use and even went through a total re-format of my hard drive to try to solve what in hindsight was probably a major hardware malfunction like a defective motherboard.  Unfortunately, I never got anywhere with either Dell or independent tech support.  To add to the misery, the entire system was infected by a virus even though I ran a full suite of anti-virus and spyware software.  In contrast, I have had zero problems with the Mac and I find the machine and operating system an elegant alternative to pc's/windows.  Literally night and day in my case.

I've been using Macs since 1989, there were ups and downs. Currently we really are at an up with the unix type operating system "OS X".

I'm using PCs at work. Since Windows 2000, the OS is OK. It only starts to really degrade when you start uninstalling things. Something which is very straightforward and clean under Mac OS: you generally just dump the application folder into the trash (except for Microsoft Office which is unbelievably PC complex).

Oh, and by the way, I agree for the mouse, but very few people ever notice it. The Apple mouse is non linear: if you move fast, the mouse moves very fast, if you move slowly, the mouse moves very slowly. This gives you increased precision.

Xavier.

I'm using an AMD machine 1800GHz with 512MB ram.

Intel PCs are (at least at all the times in the past I've looked into it) considerably more bang for the buck than Macs.  I use one for PS (and everything else) and it works fine.

Lisa

I have been using home computers since about 1978. At that time the Personal Computer was not named yet. I started with a Radio Shack TRS 80 computer running with 4kb ram. Kilo byes that is, not giga bytes.

The PC is a nice machine if you have need for word processors or spread sheet programs. I liked playing games occasionally also. The Mac, it seems to me, is more oriented to the digital artist wether that is image processing digital camera output or just generated out of the thin air. I understand that it is also a good platform for digital music creation or manipulation. So it seems it has a lot to offer the digital artist. Not to say PCs are wanting in that arena. Choices are not easy. You have to evaluate all your priorities and choose accordingly.

My G4 is running Mac OS X Version 10.3.3 and has a 55 gigabyte hard disk and one gigabyte ram. It runs a gigaHz CPU speed. Image processing is computer intensive isn't it?

Just remember no matter what you buy you will not be stuck with it for long as in a short time it will be obsoleter and you will want a newer one. I alresdy want a G5.  

Robert

Yes, but that 95% of the market includes all the major office users.  The point is that the PC is the more popular choice for the pro, semi-pro and serious amateurs who post here.  Even I, a PC user, am a little surprised by that. :cool:

Quentin

That's actually impossable due to the difference in hardware architecture. The best one can do in reality is to compare the fastest mac possable to the fastest PC possable.



The PC has native dual monitor support if the video card has two outputs. Most do. In addition, Windows allows for more than two monitors. You can have as many monitors as you have video cards (of the same brand to avoid video driver issues) to plug into it. Have a PC with 4 PCI slots and one AGP? 10 monitors. A bit overkill but possable...

__--

Anyhow. I have been using PCs for over 10 years now and I have always though Macs sucked. This is because, well, they did. I learned computers on teh Mac and I have family members who have always had macs. Macs have always been easier than PCs, but less flexible in configuration (still are), sluggish, expensive and a bit "fruity" in behavior.

Then the new designs came out in the 90s and they became pretty. Then OSX came out and showed potential. Unfortunatly that was basically beta software and they still had lame (but pretty) hardware. With each release things improved and then things got real interesting with the G5 release.

What sold me on Macs is a combination of things. I watched a low-end mac over a year ago with only 512MB of ram switch between VirtualPC, PS, IE, and dreamweaver without a hitch. Each transition between the apps was smooth as silk. All of these are memory intensive apps. When I saw that I was sold. My PC on 640MB of RAM chokes when I switch from PS to my web browser.

Add to that the UI which is 100x better in design and functionality than the FisherPrice UI of Windows, the Unix core (and all the functionality and security that comes with it), and the fact a Mac is not so prone to the same secutity issues. The next OSX (Tiger) looks very impressive; especialy it's search function. Needless to say, I am going to be buying a high-end dual G5 as soon as I can. Considering Macs and PCs in the high-end are about the same cost it's a no-brainer IMHO.

I must be using jargon.  "128 way" means a system with 128 processors in it:

http://www.hp.com/product....on.html

Once you place all those processors in a system, trust me, there's quite a lot of heat to worry about, too.

The Itanium processors themselves are 64 bit, of course.

Cheers,

Giles (yes, we're well off topic now  :laugh:)

Games do mess things up, particularly the relationship between games, video drivers, sound drivers & DirectX. Take those out of the equation, use common sense and Win2000 and WinXP are plenty solid and reliable.

But boy are those Macs pretty.  :D

* I can't belive the forum removed the word formed by rearranging these letters: nmad

I don't see the word "lied" anywhere in my post. One can make a statement that is factually incorrect without being a liar, like when given incorrect information that is believed to be true. The statement you made is incorrect, but that doesn't make you a liar.

With PC or Mac, constantly installing and uninstalling software that is not task-related will decrease system stability over time. Knowledgeable professionals limit the installation of non-task-related software on work machines for this reason. (This, and licensing issues, are the reason most corporate IT departments forbid users to install software on company machines. It's the #1 cause of help desk calls if you don't implement such a policy.) You can have a perfectly stable OS/app/hardware configuration, and still crash the machine if someone installs a buggy game or malicious spyware. In that situation, it makes no sense to blame the OS or hardware for a problem caused by third-party crapware. IMO your whole argument is a bit of a strawman for that reason.

Here's a couple very interesting article at AnandTech I just stumbled upon a day ago. It's about a PC users experience with a Mac.

Haven't read part 2 yet, but I'll link it to you anyhoot.

A Month with a Mac: A Die-Hard PC User's Perspective
A Month with a Mac - Part II: The Mobile Experience

I feel sorry for all the mac people that converted because of so many problem with virii, crashes, etc. - because when mac virii become more popular (give it a little time) you will be back to square one with excuses

Sounds like they were using an older version of OSX. By all rights when OSX first came out it pretty much was still in beta. There were quite a few kinks that needed ironing. The latest version of the OS is much less problematic.

I'm using a Dell 8200 PC, which has some severe limitations for Photoshop CS, but works OK in the final analysis as long as one doesn't depend on speed to make a living. Instead of starting a new thread, I am looking for a bit of relevant advice to improve the system incrementally until I change to something better.

I am told that if my second hard-drive were more up-to-date (the one I have in there now dates from 1998) it would improve scratch disk performance. (I have 1.56 GB RAM now and another RAM up-grade for this machine is not worth the cost under any circumstances - it uses extremely expensive RDRAM.) I can install a relatively new 7200 RPM drive at no cost and the mechanics of doing so are easy. I am wondering however whether there are any system issues anyone is aware of that I need to watch out for (Windows XP Home). That is, do I only need to remove the old one and stick in the new one, format it and assume it will be recognized, not wreck performance of anything else and in fact work compatibly with all the stuff that now works fine (e.g. MS Office, PSCS, etc.)? Any advice from experience?

I had been an IBM devotee since my first computer in 1992. I built my own the last few times, but switched to Mac in 2003 after nearly melting down in frustration trying to capture, edit, and DVD-burn digital video on my Windows machine, which did most other things decently running Windows 2000 and then XP Pro.

Switching was relatively painless, except that importing old Quicken financial data from the Win to the Mac versions proved impractical (Intuit has a virtual monopoly on personal financial mgmt software and I find not very responsive to its customers) and error-prone, while my QuickBooks migration was painless. I quickly found Mac equivalents of the other apps i usually ran, so no real issues there.

I would say that my Mac crashes rarely; if an application goes awry, it can be handled more gracefully without bringing the whole house down. Day to day operation for me is smoother and more intuitive with the Mac than with any windows version i'd used including XP Pro.

On the whole, however, I think I have had more "kernel panics" and other machine-OS interaction problems with the Mac than with the PC, and I agree with a previous respondent there that those situations are nearly always due to some piece of hardware giving the Mac indigestion.

I am satisfied with my choice of systems, and my wife is going to buy her own Mac pretty soon; I will likely upgrade my dual 1.42 GHz G4 Powermac by the end of the year or early 2006.

Windows to Run on Intel Processors

Dual-CPU AMD machine with 2GB RAM. At the time of purchase (3 years ago) it had a better performance/cost ratio than Intel or Apple. It's still a very decent performer.

Mr. Spoecker,

What are your impressions of your Mac, you like it, what are your specs? Also, have you ever used a PC, and how does it stack up?

Thank you, I'd be a big help if you could help me out,

Stefan.