climbing_vine
Well-known
bafonso said:
In some areas (such as lower-end laptops, and all-in-ones like the iMac vs the HP flat-screen clone) Apple uses much superior LCDs than seemingly comparable PCs, but you're absolutely right about the Cinema displays vs other "pro" displays. Some of the electronics may differ, QC and other 'intangibles' may differ (or may not--I don't know) but the LCD itself will be one of the same pool, and you're paying a premium for the industrial design factor. Personally I recommend Samsung.
350D_user
B+W film devotee
Remember, some of us don't use windows at all (or DOS, for that matter), but still use PC's.bafonso said:
robert blu
quiet photographer
I was told that Mac monitors are made by Samsung. Does anyone know if it is true or not ? just curious, thanks.
robert
robert
jamesj
Well-known
i was going to ask that question
what other displays are just as good as a mac cinema display?
what other displays are just as good as a mac cinema display?
climbing_vine said:
bafonso
Life is good.
350D_user said:
Ah, yes, I was also one of those users. I just grew tired of the lack of software solutions for leenucks or FreeBSD. Nice for office work and mostly all of the scientific work too (I am a biology phd student) but absolutely appaling for music stuff.. since my hobby is to make music, os x was the only way.
also, the lack of serious DTP software was a no no. Please, don't tell me about gimp, it's worthless in a professional environment. It doesn't even support cmyk.. does it?I also found I spent too much time getting anything to work on leenucks/freebsd. It's just not there yet... too many distros, too many options, no integration at all. Sad.
Of course, all my servers (I do sysadmin for my former univ) still run FreeBSD ;-)
BA
Paul T.
Veteran
AS I mentioned before, at least one of the Cinema displays uses a Philips panel that is also available in a Dell monitr. I've looked at this in the past, and broadly similar monitors are therefore available via Apple, Dell and Philips. But I would like to hear any updates. I will be shopping for a bigger monitor soon, to use with my forthcoming second Mac... a G4 Tower, for which I've picekd up bargain DVD burner, memory etc... which a neighbour left in the street! God, I love telling people that....
climbing_vine
Well-known
jamesj said:
I'd recommend Samsung, myself (Apple uses Samsung aka LGPhillips LCDs in their Cinema displays). Some Dell monitors may be the same thing, and may be cheaper if you get lucky with a coupon, but the Samsung is consistently good and consistently inexpensive. Dell and Gateway (especially Gateway) have a lot more variability, I would imagine due to differences in QC and/or support electronics.
Some people like NEC and Sony; I haven't had experience with any of their LCDs after about 2002. By happenstance in the case of NEC, on purpose in the case of Sony who were just as bad at LCDs as they were at most other things. They may be better now due to their partnering up with Samsung on an LCD plant, but I'm not familiar with the extent of the partnership and I still don't trust Sony to not cut corners when they're bleeding more money all the time.
You should definitely do some googling, there are a number of forums filled with people that own more LCDs than you can count on one hand and compare them endlessly. They know a lot more than me!
350D_user
B+W film devotee
As you wish.bafonso said:
You've requested me to not tell you about GIMP.bafonso said:
Each to their own though. Macs are overpriced, microsoft can't write software ... at all? That limits my choice of operating system.
climbing_vine
Well-known
350D_user said:
Unless they're more expensive in the UK (which may be, I don't know), this has been debunked above. Since you use some variety of *nix/bsd, I'll assume you buy or assemble "raw" machines rather than buying a Hewlett-Packard and removing Windows. In that case you're comparing apples to oranges. Both Apple and non-trash Windows machines are "overpriced" for your needs (the Apples mostly *less* so than Windows), because you don't need a ready-out-of-the-box solution.
flipflop
Well-known
Get the mac...I have a G4 powerbook laptop that I run dual displays on it . I have a 22" viewsonic monitor that I use with it. I would NEVER go back to a Windows machine...their is no point unless you want all the crap already stated.
The only thing that I dont like about a Mac is the price. I would also go for a Ram upgrade when you get the machine I dont think the default amount is enough to really appreciate the machine and to edit photos movies and scan all at the same time.
I have had my computer 2 years and dont see myself needing a new one for another 1.5-2 yrs.
. I have a 22" viewsonic monitor that I use with it. I would NEVER go back to a Windows machine...their is no point unless you want all the crap already stated. The only thing that I dont like about a Mac is the price. I would also go for a Ram upgrade when you get the machine I dont think the default amount is enough to really appreciate the machine and to edit photos movies and scan all at the same time.
I have had my computer 2 years and dont see myself needing a new one for another 1.5-2 yrs.
photogdave
Shops local
Again with the price! :bang:
Bang for your buck and over time macs are much more cost effective!
Bang for your buck and over time macs are much more cost effective!
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
If I go through with the full responsibilities of the job I just took I will be doing photo restoration, recoloring, hand coloring, and a whole lot of other things on the computer of my choice. That computer is a Mac. I am, however, going to be looking for a good home for this one as soon as I can possibly find enough money for one of those Intel Macbook Pros...they actually run Photoshop faster than this dual processor G4!
I've used both PCs and Macs over the years and much prefer the stability and reliability that the Macintosh offers. I mean, I've used this thing for almost four years now and it still sounds the same as the day I got it. There's a crack in one of the sides of the case due to a mishap on the day I brought it home, but that's just cosmetic. The thing runs well, has all the power I really need at this point in time, and iPhoto and iTunes are great for me.
It's a personal choice. I say to go for it, but that's just me.
I've used both PCs and Macs over the years and much prefer the stability and reliability that the Macintosh offers. I mean, I've used this thing for almost four years now and it still sounds the same as the day I got it. There's a crack in one of the sides of the case due to a mishap on the day I brought it home, but that's just cosmetic. The thing runs well, has all the power I really need at this point in time, and iPhoto and iTunes are great for me.
It's a personal choice. I say to go for it, but that's just me.
amateriat
We're all light!
Hey, compared to a lot of PC/Mac threads I've suffered elsewhere, this has been a wonderfully civil exchange...like most others on RFf.Topdog1 said:
Word. I've used a dual-monitor setup for quite some time; absolutely the way to go when working with PS or the like (unless you shoot for the moon and snag a 30" Apple display).
- Barrett
350D_user
B+W film devotee
Replacement parts aren't as cheap for macs.photogdave said:Again with the price! :bang:
Bang for your buck and over time macs are much more cost effective!
... don't say the various bits don't fail. They can, and will.
My final comment.
climbing_vine
Well-known
350D_user said:
There's still some truth to that, though more and more they use the same parts as anyone else--or at least ones that aren't any more expensive. They use stock drives and video cards, for example. But that's a consideration for a very, very small percentage of the population. Everyone else should just buy a warranty.
amateriat
We're all light!
photogdave said:Again with the price! :bang:
Bang for your buck and over time macs are much more cost effective!
This is because, way too often, people are far more concerned with the up-front costs to care about the "out-back", or long-term, costs.
When the stock agency I worked for some years back decided to computerize their operation, they decided, contrary to what others in the field were doing, to go with a Windows setup, because – all together now – PCs are cheaper. If I were to tally up the support costs, replacement equipment costs (twice in three years), the downtime casued by a virus that ate most of our image files (also twice), plus other enexpected costs (including a lawsuit agains the outfit that set us up the first time), I'd say having gone Mac to start with would have been almost laughably cheap by contrast.
If I think about how much people have paid me to clean up their "bargain" PCs, it makes me shake my head...on the one hand, I don't mind the money at all (Thank you, (James Taylor), but when I've modestly suggested switching to a Mac, the common refrain is "But aren't those expensive?", ignoring the fact that they just handed me enough money, together with what they paid for that PC, to have easily gotten a Mac. Like the Fram oil-filter guy said, you can pay now...
- Barrett
Jamie123
Veteran
I've had my Dell desktop PC for about 4 years now and it's still doing it's job nicely. A couple of years ago I added another hdd and used the new one as a primary drive but apart from that everything's fine.
I'm sure Macs last long but a PC can last just as long with proper care.
I'm sure Macs last long but a PC can last just as long with proper care.
dspeltz
Portsmouth, NH USA
I am a PC guy. I am switching to Apple in April for visual media except for Astrophotography which uses software that is PC compatible only. The reason I am waiting is that the largest Apple dealer in NYC told me to. Major changes and synchronization between Apple and Adobe as well as other improvements. It has taken a really long time (25 years) for me to make this move. But the Apple dealer who specializes in Photoshop, etc. said be patient, buy in the Spring.
MikeL
Go Fish
I never conduct secure transactions on a workplace PC. I'm always sanitizing the ones in our lab. Parts might be more expensive on a Mac but you are getting higher quality parts than some other companies use. I've converted about 8 "switchers" and all of them have been grateful. Any RFFers at MacWorld this week? I'll be there Wed.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Jorge,
I haven't read all 11 pages of this thread, so i don't know if my response has been covered, but....
1. I love Macs. I detest PCs. So, i have a solid skew in favor of your 'switch.'
2. I bought a new G5-Intel MacPro in October, after having been using an upgraded G3 for about five years. I knew, going in, that the Intel machine would be running under Rosetta until all the software people updated their applications. I was happily surprised to find that Photoshop still ran faster on the new machine than it did on my G3 Dual500 upgraded to Dual 1.6ghz. On the other hand, when i rented a MacBook Pro in August, Photoshop ran more slowly than on my old machine. I don't know how the iMac compares.
The issue, though, is software. The hardware is plenty fast. But, you'd have to run the Photoshop CS3 beta to really see an improvement over CS2-rosetta. That's fine, as the CS3 beta is free until the official release (if you already are registered for CS2) - BUT:
The Plug-Ins i had been using with CS2 do not work with the CS3 Beta.
As of today, i believe that includes AlienSkin Exposure, and Digital Film Labs 55mm, two of my favorite filters. As well, i can't get a scanner import plug-in to use my Minolta 5400 scanner. I would have to buy VueScan or SilverFast or somesuch.....
Right now, i'm still going back to CS2 for scanning. Then shutting it down, launching CS3 for editing, if i have to do anything processor-intensive...Then shutting it down and launching CS2 again for 'polishing' and effects and whatnot. Not the smoothest workflow. I don't know if the Plug-In companies will release Intel-compatible updates, or if they'll charge for upgrades. Either way, they aren't available now, and i don't like the idea of having to pay for them.
But, that's that. The Mac is still a fantastic machine, and i have no doubts that you'll be a convert. PCs, by contrast, seem so primitive. The interface and OS are just so 'fugly.' As a person interested in visual arts, i don't understand how the aesthetics of the work environment can be ignored by PC devotees.
Good luck.
I haven't read all 11 pages of this thread, so i don't know if my response has been covered, but....
1. I love Macs. I detest PCs. So, i have a solid skew in favor of your 'switch.'
2. I bought a new G5-Intel MacPro in October, after having been using an upgraded G3 for about five years. I knew, going in, that the Intel machine would be running under Rosetta until all the software people updated their applications. I was happily surprised to find that Photoshop still ran faster on the new machine than it did on my G3 Dual500 upgraded to Dual 1.6ghz. On the other hand, when i rented a MacBook Pro in August, Photoshop ran more slowly than on my old machine. I don't know how the iMac compares.
The issue, though, is software. The hardware is plenty fast. But, you'd have to run the Photoshop CS3 beta to really see an improvement over CS2-rosetta. That's fine, as the CS3 beta is free until the official release (if you already are registered for CS2) - BUT:
The Plug-Ins i had been using with CS2 do not work with the CS3 Beta.
As of today, i believe that includes AlienSkin Exposure, and Digital Film Labs 55mm, two of my favorite filters. As well, i can't get a scanner import plug-in to use my Minolta 5400 scanner. I would have to buy VueScan or SilverFast or somesuch.....
Right now, i'm still going back to CS2 for scanning. Then shutting it down, launching CS3 for editing, if i have to do anything processor-intensive...Then shutting it down and launching CS2 again for 'polishing' and effects and whatnot. Not the smoothest workflow. I don't know if the Plug-In companies will release Intel-compatible updates, or if they'll charge for upgrades. Either way, they aren't available now, and i don't like the idea of having to pay for them.
But, that's that. The Mac is still a fantastic machine, and i have no doubts that you'll be a convert. PCs, by contrast, seem so primitive. The interface and OS are just so 'fugly.' As a person interested in visual arts, i don't understand how the aesthetics of the work environment can be ignored by PC devotees.
Good luck.