Ill remember not to take it personally next time...

 

anyone else too lazy to get 100% into these arguments because of all the typing required?

..and of course the threat of bannage

 

I haven't banned anyone for an argument since you. Back then I was probably just angry because I was still a Windows user.

My system probably crashed mid-argument and you got too far ahead for me to catch up, so

 

I feel so special now. And hey if using a Mac can actually make someone less angry then it's almost compulsory that I get myself one. Unfortunately the usual 500$ i spend on a new Dell system won't get me an apple mouse.

 

Mac Mini!!

 

 

Off topic, but I figured I'd throw this into the discussion...

My home machine is used 75% for surfing the web, 20% for photo work, and 5% misc crap. Of those three categories, the only thing that would justify spending money for is improving my photography workflow.

Photoshop is all I use, and I really can't think of any benefits the Mac version offers over the PC version. I certainly can't think of a time where I've been using my PC version and thought it was limited in some way. Really, the only benefit I see for a serious photo hobbyist is that the MacBooks have nice screens.

I have a Lenovo laptop (for work) and an Athlon 64 desktop. As much as I like my Lenovo, it's screen is not up to snuff for photo editing. In fact, I've decided not to enrol in some photography seminars just because they required a laptop and I wouldn't even think of using mine. That being said, there has to be a PC laptop manufacturer that offers a good screen so I really don't think Apple is unique in that field either.

Not being a Mac user, I really don't know what reasons there would for me to switch. I know they're are used by everyone in the graphics industry, but why? I'm not trying to throw gas on the fire, I'm genuinely curious. What is it that the Mac offers that the PC doesn't? Are there workflow improvements? Faster processing?

 

While the mini would make a nice web browser something tells me I would be feeling the apple 'blue balls' shortly after purchase..

 

I hear you man. I could totally own all the arguments in this and any and all other threads but I'm just too lazy to type everything out. So, I just argue some simple points, but keep it real i.e. on the "still arguable" side, I don't like being the threadkiller, son.

 

IMO nothing beats a good flat screened CRT for graphic design...my buddy has a web development business and he forbids the use of LCD's...only sony CRT's allowed.

 

Dan Martin

 

he's gonna get served....then it'll be on.

 

is putting together a presentation with graphs and charts, gallop polls, mazigine reviews, fire and brimstone, etc. as we speak.

 

I have an image of Vista on my desktop from MSDN, yet another reason to procrastinate installing this in our QA lab.

 

Much better color representation. Much easier to calibrate.

But no one wants to use them anymore because they big and bulky.

Even I see a CRT at this point and saw ewww.

 

You and I both. I'm responsible for the training of 5,000 users when we switch from Windows 200 and Office 2000 to Vista and Office 2007.

 

I hope he's using the right Summer '06 color palette.

 

holy sheit.. Windows 200 to Vista!!! that is a crazy step.

in all seriousness, good Luck w/ that... yes that's Luck w/ a capital "L".

 

LCD's have come a long way, but you need a 10-bit LCD to match a professional Sony CRT. It's just a bitch to cary a 21" CRT around with you.

BTW, the 14-bit LCDs are in a different league altogether. No current display system can match the color gamut they produce.

 

What company, in their right minds would consider this stuff so early in cycle? I would only adopt Vista 1 year+ into release.

 

Again, Dan Martin

Regarding the CRT/LCD thing, there are LCD monitors out there that are worthy of imaging professionals. The problem is that they're bigtime $'s.

I should really learn to stay away from these threads. Every time I read one I end up wanting to go buy a Mac. I've made a promise to myself though to only spend the toy budget on things that get my ass out of the house not in front of a desk or on the couch.

 

@ this thread

 

the 1.66 core duo is a really nice machine.

 

seen those...very and very $$$$.

 

I really don't care what I use, I just want the best package possible. If Mac is better/faster/cheaper than the PC alternatives, then I'd be crazy not to buy one. Not using one on a daily basis, I really have no clue what the benefits would be for me for what I do. I'm just assuming that I'm not Apple's intended market, otherwise I would know why I'd want one.

 

considering that most graphic designers have switched to LCD's in the past year or two, i'd say that no longer holds true.

it all depends on what you're designing for and how serious you are.

digital designers stuck to CRT's for a long while because it can be difficult to gauge the brightness and saturation of your images when designing on an LCD for viewing on a CRT.

these days however, the bulk majority of your users are on LCD's, so if you're a digital designer with a properly calibrated LCD, it tends to be the better option.

(this is why most web designers are now on LCD's and why the standard ol' 760px fixed-width page is making way to the 980px page.)

for print, it's the same story... a properly calibrated LCD can yield great results in print.

however, i'll admit there's cases where an LCD isn't appropriate.

you can't use the term "graphic design" that broadly though, because it applies to so many functions and markets.

in my arena, digital/web design... nearly everyone has made the transition to LCD's. especially thanks to Apple's latest offerings.

 

no doubt..but it's also 800$. i will get an apple within the next year...had the itch for a while. i just don't have the cash right now. i'd rather wait a little and get something midrange in their lineup.

 

Apple's not great at marketing their software.

They're great at marketing their industrial design, which is partly why they're soo damn good at selling iPods.

However, photographers are a huge portion of Apple's audience. Why do you think that despite the few software offerings from Apple they have two for photography, iPhoto & Aperture.

Photographers, Videographers, Designers, and Musicians are Apple's core audience.

 

We have 3 graphics guys, they are all on apple cinema displays. As usual they only ask for neutrally lighted rooms, a pendant style calibration tool & the fastest Macs we can buy.

 

Yeah, $800 is a bit much for a mini. No question, and I would skip the Solo too.

 

Software...I know soopa will say that there are plenty of titles for the Mac, but go to any Best Buy or Compusa and the Mac area is still only a shelf or two.

 

And have you tried aperture yet? It is getting shit reviews so far no one's looking further than Adobe as far as I can see. It's protection features aren't enough to make it a full blown successful editor.

 

well my biggest issue with LCD is the contrast ratio and color correctness when working on photos that will be printed. as for web design, you are right, if everyone's looking at your page with an LCD, no point in designing using a CRT. I just don't think we're there yet..many many people are still using CRT's.

 

I agree 100%, which is a shame. I could care less how "cool" my computer looks.

iPhoto is nice, but not for professionals or serious amatures. Aperture looked interesting to me, until I played with it for 20mins at Vistek in Toronto. I can't see myself using it over any of the tools already offered in Photoshop, if anything, it just complicates the workflow. It would need to be an all-encompassing photo editing suite before I'd consider dropping Adobe.

 

this is much worse than if it had just been a misspelling!!

I'm still catching up on this thread... lol.. pgs 2-3 are pretty good.

 

who the fuck goes to best buy or compusa to buy software anymore??

buy it online, and download. save the wasteful packaging and BS employees man.

 

First, workflow is improved drastically going to OSX from Windows... no matter the application.

Second, there's Lightroom & Aperture. Two essential tools for the modern photographer.

Third, you're right... there's little difference in the capabilities of Photoshop in Windows or OSX. However, Photoshop is better executed on OSX. There are greater workflow improvements and better integration with the operating system and 3rd party apps.

Fourth, the OSX UI provides a more neautral backdrop for anyone working with color in design or photography.

Fifth, OSX offers native color calibration and management as well as superior 3rd party color management. I'm sure with expensive software/hardware you could get decent color management in Windows too, but I never could.

Sixth, community. The Professional Photography community is primarily occupied by Apple users. Read some of their opinions on using a Mac: http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/

Seventh, Native support for RAW.

Eighth, driverless camera support. Plug any camera, any card, anything into your Mac and it will work.

Ninth, try it. Surely you know a fellow photographer who uses a Mac. Robb even. Sit down with them and watch their workflow, then take it for a spin. You'll know why you need a Mac then.

 

So... Firefox or IE?

 

There's also these things called APPLE stores, they have a great selection of software. Like any other product, apple will only pay so much to get shelfspace in big stores especially when they have their own retail locations.

 

VHS or Beta?