Why I absolutely love Microsoft
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Astroboy
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.
buy it online, and download. save the wasteful packaging and BS employees man.
I can't recall the last time I bought software in a store... if ever?!
Games maybe. I've bought games in stores.
But since you mention CompUSA, they're actually one of Apple's larger retailers. The CompUSA near me has at least 25% of the store dedicated to Mac products.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 11,829
Likes: 3
From: CRY, CRY SOME MORE!
Originally Posted by soopa
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.
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.
Agree with everything but the aperature comment. Most pro's i know use MAC with Adobe, I get the feeling Aperature is going to need alot more adoption time.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by eclipse23
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.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by eclipse23
Agree with everything but the aperature comment. Most pro's i know use MAC with Adobe, I get the feeling Aperature is going to need alot more adoption time.
Right now, Lightroom isn't in full production. Maybe then I agree with your statement. But currently nearly every professional I know is using Aperture for asset management at least.
Editing is still done in Photoshop.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Whiskers
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.
There's an app for every purpose and more on OSX.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 11,829
Likes: 3
From: CRY, CRY SOME MORE!
Originally Posted by soopa
hmm? Aperture is a compliment to Adobe products.
Right now, Lightroom isn't in full production. Maybe then I agree with your statement. But currently nearly every professional I know is using Aperture for asset management at least.
Editing is still done in Photoshop.
Right now, Lightroom isn't in full production. Maybe then I agree with your statement. But currently nearly every professional I know is using Aperture for asset management at least.
Editing is still done in Photoshop.
In terms of it's 'anywhere to anywhere' features with drag and drop it's great for moving around pictures and creating a pallet of good shots to work with, I also thought the fullscreen option was better than the Cntrl +/- dance I've done in PS.
Apple's own words were that it's an all in one post production application. It still limits where and how many DB's you can create in the app (one of our designers tried aperature but eventually just went back to older methods). It's definitely, from what I could have seen the coolest asset manager for photos since you literaly can cut through hundreds of shots and pull out your good ones but the editing (at least from what i've seen) is still done in adobe. But yes, i could definitely see you using aperature as your file cabinet, point taken.
Photography Nerd
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 21,489
Likes: 11
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by soopa
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.
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.
I think what it will take is for me to try a current MacBook Pro for week and see how it fits with what I do. Maybe my old computer shop will let me break one in for them.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Alot of Adobe fans here. So lets check out Adobe's Photography Center...
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/ps_pro.html
Check the movies, the whitepapers, the interviews... notice anything?
Yep, everyone is using a Mac.
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/ps_pro.html
Check the movies, the whitepapers, the interviews... notice anything?
Yep, everyone is using a Mac.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Photoshop has all the photo editing capabilities that I need, but what would be really helpful to me is a solid Digital Assets Management package, preferably built into the OS. I would love to be able to click File -> Open and be able to search for my photos using metadata. Version control would also be valuable to me, but I have only seen that on high-end DAM packages.
I think what it will take is for me to try a current MacBook Pro for week and see how it fits with what I do. Maybe my old computer shop will let me break one in for them.
I think what it will take is for me to try a current MacBook Pro for week and see how it fits with what I do. Maybe my old computer shop will let me break one in for them.
It's called HFS+ and Spotlight.
Tie that in with Automator and maybe Quicksilver and you've got customizable native asset management that doesn't require you to ever leave your keyboard. Mouse what?
iPhoto and Aperture both have version control and Photoshop support baked-in.
I know you think iPhoto is an amateur tool, and that's how it comes across. It's cute and clean, however there are many SERIOUS photographers using it as a first stop in their workflow.
It may not be for you, but it's an option with some serious benefits. Don't write it off because they may not be initially apparent.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,187
Likes: 14,330
From my use of Macs in the past, it always seemed pretty clear to me that Macs produce on-screen color better than PC's. Namely, color transitions in images are smoother and consequently pictures look more "life-like". Does this still hold true today? Or have the newer PC video cards caught up.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by srika
From my use of Macs in the past, it always seemed pretty clear to me that Macs reproduce on-screen color better than PC's. Namely, color transitions in images are smoother and consequently pictures look more "life-like". Does this still hold true today? Or have the newer PC video cards caught up.
Photography Nerd
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 21,489
Likes: 11
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by eclipse23
It's definitely, from what I could have seen the coolest asset manager for photos since you literaly can cut through hundreds of shots and pull out your good ones but the editing (at least from what i've seen) is still done in adobe.
Basically, I want the asset management side of Aperture to be built into the OS so it's not another program I have to run to get to what I want to do. The goal for me is to edit photos, not to find them. Anything I can do to streamline that process is valuable to me.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Maybe register for this seminar:
Mac OSX Tiger: The Ultimate Platform for Photography
http://seminars.apple.com/seminarson...ndex.html?s=50
Mac OSX Tiger: The Ultimate Platform for Photography
http://seminars.apple.com/seminarson...ndex.html?s=50
Photography Nerd
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 21,489
Likes: 11
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by soopa
OSX has that.
It's called HFS+ and Spotlight.
Tie that in with Automator and maybe Quicksilver and you've got customizable native asset management that doesn't require you to ever leave your keyboard. Mouse what?
iPhoto and Aperture both have version control and Photoshop support baked-in.
I know you think iPhoto is an amateur tool, and that's how it comes across. It's cute and clean, however there are many SERIOUS photographers using it as a first stop in their workflow.
It may not be for you, but it's an option with some serious benefits. Don't write it off because they may not be initially apparent.
It's called HFS+ and Spotlight.
Tie that in with Automator and maybe Quicksilver and you've got customizable native asset management that doesn't require you to ever leave your keyboard. Mouse what?
iPhoto and Aperture both have version control and Photoshop support baked-in.
I know you think iPhoto is an amateur tool, and that's how it comes across. It's cute and clean, however there are many SERIOUS photographers using it as a first stop in their workflow.
It may not be for you, but it's an option with some serious benefits. Don't write it off because they may not be initially apparent.
Race Director
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 17,921
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by srika
From my use of Macs in the past, it always seemed pretty clear to me that Macs reproduce on-screen color better than PC's. Namely, color transitions in images are smoother and consequently pictures look more "life-like". Does this still hold true today? Or have the newer PC video cards caught up.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Yes, that part I liked the most. Conventional file folders just aren't well adapted to managing large photo collections. The only downside I saw was that Aperture seemed to be very slow even on a dual-G5 when working with several photos from a shoot. To be fair, it might just be as slow on a PC if a similar program existed. It would just be something to get used to.
Basically, I want the asset management side of Aperture to be built into the OS so it's not another program I have to run to get to what I want to do. The goal for me is to edit photos, not to find them. Anything I can do to streamline that process is valuable to me.
Basically, I want the asset management side of Aperture to be built into the OS so it's not another program I have to run to get to what I want to do. The goal for me is to edit photos, not to find them. Anything I can do to streamline that process is valuable to me.
OSX offers incredible file management paired with meta-aware file system and the infinetely extensible instant search that is Spotlight (which is baked into Photoshop on OSX).
With few more then a couple keystrokes you could do everything and anything you need to manage your photos.
For even more capabilities, use Quicksilver... which sits in the background and will make you feel like you're Tom Cruise in Minority Report.
On Aperture, the latest builds essentially require Intel-macs. So it's no surprise it'd be slow on a Dual G5.
If you don't like Aperture, why not use Lightroom? It's Adobe's answer to Aperture and the evolution of asset management in Creative Suite.
Right now it's only available for OSX>
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Minch00
Hey, since there are so many mods in this thread, can you go over to the manly one and ban the assclowns giving away fucking xmen spoilers totally unprovoked. Thanks.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,187
Likes: 14,330
hmmm. I just did some quick reading on Coreimage - which I didn't know existed until a few minutes ago - and it seems it has more to do with the way it uses the video card, rather than the chip on the video card. i.e. both PC and Mac can have the same video card but images will look better on the Mac just because of the way it uses the video card. So I don't think this is an issue of chips on the video card... ?
Photography Nerd
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 21,489
Likes: 11
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by soopa
Maybe register for this seminar:
Mac OSX Tiger: The Ultimate Platform for Photography
http://seminars.apple.com/seminarson...ndex.html?s=50
Mac OSX Tiger: The Ultimate Platform for Photography
http://seminars.apple.com/seminarson...ndex.html?s=50
I'll look for a "Windows Vista: The best platform for web development" course for you to take...
Kidding aside, I'll check it out.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by zeroday
core image is more of a speed related item from what i've read.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Looks good, but I'll bring my tinfoil hat to block the mind control waves.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
I'll look for a "Windows Vista: The best platform for web development" course for you to take...
Photography Nerd
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 21,489
Likes: 11
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by soopa
Like I said, it's built-in.
OSX offers incredible file management paired with meta-aware file system and the infinetely extensible instant search that is Spotlight (which is baked into Photoshop on OSX).
With few more then a couple keystrokes you could do everything and anything you need to manage your photos.
For even more capabilities, use Quicksilver... which sits in the background and will make you feel like you're Tom Cruise in Minority Report.
On Aperture, the latest builds essentially require Intel-macs. So it's no surprise it'd be slow on a Dual G5.
If you don't like Aperture, why not use Lightroom? It's Adobe's answer to Aperture and the evolution of asset management in Creative Suite.
Right now it's only available for OSX>
OSX offers incredible file management paired with meta-aware file system and the infinetely extensible instant search that is Spotlight (which is baked into Photoshop on OSX).
With few more then a couple keystrokes you could do everything and anything you need to manage your photos.
For even more capabilities, use Quicksilver... which sits in the background and will make you feel like you're Tom Cruise in Minority Report.
On Aperture, the latest builds essentially require Intel-macs. So it's no surprise it'd be slow on a Dual G5.
If you don't like Aperture, why not use Lightroom? It's Adobe's answer to Aperture and the evolution of asset management in Creative Suite.
Right now it's only available for OSX>
My main concern about speed was that I'm only interested in a laptop. I hope the single CoreDuo will be up to the task of running aperture or lightroom effectively.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by srika
hmmm. I just did some quick reading on Coreimage - which I didn't know existed until a few minutes ago - and it seems it has more to do with the way it uses the video card, rather than the chip on the video card. i.e. both PC and Mac can have the same video card but images will look better on the Mac just because of the way it uses the video card. So I don't think this is an issue of chips on the video card... ?
I suppose Core Image would be best compared to DirectX.
This is why Microsoft is making a hard push for DirectX 10 on Vista, so they can copy OSX's effects... like Expose.
I imagine this is also partly why they can't make DX10 compatible with XP. This is why so many games will now be "Vista-only" titles.
Again though, I'll leave this one to you gaming/hardware geeks.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
I was unaware of those features in OSX and it sounds good.
My main concern about speed was that I'm only interested in a laptop. I hope the single CoreDuo will be up to the task of running aperture or lightroom effectively.
My main concern about speed was that I'm only interested in a laptop. I hope the single CoreDuo will be up to the task of running aperture or lightroom effectively.
I have the 2.16ghz Core Duo (17" MacBook Pro [yep, a laptop])... it doesn't get any faster.
Photography Nerd
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 21,489
Likes: 11
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by soopa
Apple''s MacBook Pro's are currently the fastest machines in their line-up.
I have the 2.16ghz Core Duo (17" MacBook Pro [yep, a laptop])... it doesn't get any faster.
I have the 2.16ghz Core Duo (17" MacBook Pro [yep, a laptop])... it doesn't get any faster.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
I would probably be looking at the 15" for portability. Is there much of a performance difference between the 2ghz and the 2.16ghz models, assuming they had the same amount of RAM?
Of all things, I'd think the faster (7200rpm vs 5400rpm) hard drive will give the biggest performance gain when working with photos and Photoshop.
Thread Starter
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Also, if you don't have a large LCD at home... I'd either get one or go for the 17" model. The small sacrifice in form factor (2 inches and 1 lb) is well worth the greater screen real estate.
I went for the 17" specifically for working in Photoshop. The 15" I used to have was just a little too low of resolution to comfortably fit Photoshop's palettes. The 17" resolution is perfect.
Granted, I have a large LCD on my desk... but I wanted to be able to work just as productively away from home.
So far, so good. I'm not regretting the choice.
But, you can't go wrong with the 15" either. I loved mine. Just noting the differences and the realities.
I went for the 17" specifically for working in Photoshop. The 15" I used to have was just a little too low of resolution to comfortably fit Photoshop's palettes. The 17" resolution is perfect.
Granted, I have a large LCD on my desk... but I wanted to be able to work just as productively away from home.
So far, so good. I'm not regretting the choice.
But, you can't go wrong with the 15" either. I loved mine. Just noting the differences and the realities.
