Mac vs. pc for photo work

[Howard]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Best,
Howie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3r1Id.1631$r27.342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Howard" <wettstein@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> Best,
> Howie

Go to an Apple store and play with a desktop Mac to see if it's right
for you. Recently MS has been catching up in their GUI while Apple has
been catching up in their bug count.

The dual proc G5 desktops are elegant marvels of engineering but their
age is showing and their prices are still high. They're probably not a
good buy unless they have a specific feature that you need - low noise,
Unix OS, digital A/V, etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Howard" <wettstein@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3r1Id.1631$r27.342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> Best,
> Howie

I work with XP and OSX machines every day and if it was my money I would
fo with a PC. PCs are faster, cheaper and easy to upgrade.

 

[Chris]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Howard wrote:
> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> Best,
> Howie


OSX is easier to use but for photo editing, there isn't any advantage as
long as you use good software, such as photoshop. I have a powerbook but
I hardly think of using it at home. I do everything on my WinXP PC. If I
had the money, I'd upgrade my current Athlon XP desktop to Athlon64 and
would cost less than a Mac mini. If you're thinking of the Mac mini, be
forwarned that it's based on ibook, i.e. very slow with no memory cache,
and need to increase the memory to at least 5120MB. It has no keyboard
and mouse. If you want an exotic OS, go for it but it's going to be very
slow. You get what you pay for. As for iMac, I don't see why I want to
have an expensive LCD built into a CPU that I certainly want to upgrade
the speed every two years.

 

[Howard]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Culd you say a bit more about the G5's.How are they showing their age? Is
there stuff in the PC world that improves on those age-deficiencies?
Thanks again.
Howie


"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-072C4F.23045920012005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> In article <3r1Id.1631$r27.342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Howard" <wettstein@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
>> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
>> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>> Best,
>> Howie
>
> Go to an Apple store and play with a desktop Mac to see if it's right
> for you. Recently MS has been catching up in their GUI while Apple has
> been catching up in their bug count.
>
> The dual proc G5 desktops are elegant marvels of engineering but their
> age is showing and their prices are still high. They're probably not a
> good buy unless they have a specific feature that you need - low noise,
> Unix OS, digital A/V, etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Howard" <wettstein@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3r1Id.1631$r27.342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> Best,
> Howie
>

Hi,
I prefer PC, cheaper, more versatile, personal preference tho, Mac OsX takes
QUITE some getting used to!
lots of the Bureau staff in our office have a Mac and PC each, and seem to
prefer the PCs too (we do scans, printing, bureau and repro)
The choice is yours, it seems to be more about personal preference than one
system being better than another
Steven

 

[Howard]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Chuck,
Interesting that you mentioned philosophy, my field. Thanks for the
good advice and information. I'm intrigued by the Mac, and annoyed by
various glitches and complications in the PC world, which I have always
been in. I'm thinking about a G5 with a big screen. Anyway, if you have
further thoughts, please pass them along. One thing: could you say a
word about how OSX helps with organizing photos and the like. Also,
networking, if you know about that. I'm having all sorts of headaches
with Windows networking.
Howie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Howard wrote:
> Could you say a bit more about the G5's. How are they showing their
age? Is
> there stuff in the PC world that improves on those age-deficiencies?

The G5 is hardly "showing its age", unless you're the geektype who buys
the latest hardware every 4 months. If that's the case, then the
answer to your question is that your current hardware's good enough for
what you need, regardless of its CPU or OS or anything else

Now I will grant you that Apple's G4 CPU did deserve its "long in
tooth" criticism. Which is why an Apple laptop or mini isn't the best
choice for doing Photoshop production on.

The most important change in the G5 wasn't really its higher-than-G4
clockspeeds, but instead was the system architectural changes that
accompanied the chip. These changes did more than merely eliminated
the huge bandwidth bottlenecks that the G4 suffered from: it blew the
doors off of bandwidth availability, which allows for future growth.
If the G5 is "showing its age", then this factor is the deathknell for
*all* Intel CPU's.


If you want a lightweight dose of geek stuff (with some topping from
Apple's marketing department) see:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html

The KISS take-away is that if the G4's bandwidth was a dirt road, the
Pentium was at best a two-lane highway, whereas the G5 is a 4-lane
German Autobahn.


IMO, I think the real underlying comment here was a hit on its price.
Apple has traditionally been criticized for being more expensive.
Yeah, BMW's cost more too, and that's what a smaller production base
will always do to a product.

There's going to be difference in design ...both hardware and OS...that
vary in their significance, depending on the person examining them, and
there will inevitably be differences in the price tag too. The final
cost:benefit decision is always up to you.

Personally, I appreciate the G5's nearly silent operation, as well as
the OS is effectively immune from all of the windows OS malware.

My suggestion for an Apple machine to consider would be the DP 1.8GHz
G5 PowerMac. It lists for $1999 but needs another ~$170 to bump up the
RAM by +1GB. Do check to see if you can qualify for one of the
discount groups (EDU/etc), as this will cut around $150 off the price.
This system (with 1GB of RAM) should slice thru most Photoshop tasks
quite respectfully, and I'd not expect to have to touch the machine for
any upgrades for at least 3 years. I've used the Single Processor
version of this machine and ~20MB Photoshop files aren't a problem. I
did throw a 1GB photoshop file to see what it would do and while it did
cause it to pause and chew, it did swallow.

-hh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21 Jan 2005 10:21:36 -0800, "Howard" <Howard.Wettstein@ucr.edu>
wrote:

>Hi Chuck,
>Interesting that you mentioned philosophy, my field. Thanks for the
>good advice and information. I'm intrigued by the Mac, and annoyed by
>various glitches and complications in the PC world, which I have always
>been in. I'm thinking about a G5 with a big screen. Anyway, if you have
>further thoughts, please pass them along. One thing: could you say a
>word about how OSX helps with organizing photos and the like. Also,
>networking, if you know about that. I'm having all sorts of headaches
>with Windows networking.
>Howie

Take a look at some of the features in Tiger the Mac OS out later this
year. It has some very interesting feature relative to searching
images.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight.html


*****************************************************

"He that we last as Thurn and Taxis knew
Now recks no lord but the stiletto's Thorn,
And Tacit lies the gold once-knotted horn.
No hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow,
Who's once been set his tryst with Trystero."

"The Crying of Lot 49"
Thomas Pynchon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Howard wrote:
> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> Best,
> Howie
>
>
Either will work just fine. Use whichever one you are most comfortable
with.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Howard wrote:
>
> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

The differences are much smaller now than at any point in the past. Mac
has certain advantages, like being free of spyware/malware/viruses. PCs
have certain advantages, like cheaper, faster, more options, more
flexibility.

My suggestion would be to go to an Apple store and play with a Mac for a
while and see if you like it. That, more than anything, should be the
basis for your decision.

Lisa

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The G5's fans are controlled by the Max OS. As such there should only
be three times that they'll run full blast (and thus be loud):

1) During a kernel panic. I've seen this happen once...and the loud
fans was the "hey, what's going on?" symptom.

2) If a different OS has been installed, such as Linix, which doesn't
have control over the fans

3) If the machine is sitting in a hot ambient environment.

There is a utility within OS X that will display the CPU's temperature.
Recommend that you have your friend check it out: if the fan noise is
offensive with a CPU temperature below 134F, recommend he do a reboot
and if that doesnt' immediately fix it, have him take the machine in
for service: something's broken.

FWIW, the "MDD" (Mirror Door Drive?) G4 was the one with the bad
reputation for being noisy, IIRC.

-hh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1/21/05 12:37 AM, in article
3r1Id.1631$r27.342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Howard"
<wettstein@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> Best,
> Howie
>
>
If it is suggestions and opinions that you want, Mac vs. PC, you'll get
plenty of them here! Here is mine:
I use both a PC (that boots both Win XP and Linux) and a Mac dual G5. I
prefer the Mac, not only for photography but for everyday use as well.
Photoshop will use both processors on the G5 and it is noticeably faster at
carrying out various filter actions. [as an fyi I owned the PC version of
Photoshop prior to getting the Mac but Adobe sent me the full Mac version at
no additional cost in return for a statement that I was switching platforms]
Another opinion - the head of the photography department at our local
college uses both PC's and Mac's as well and prefers the Macs.
That said, if you are expecting a night and day difference, it isn't there,
it is mostly which experience and interface you prefer. If you live near an
Apple store, or any store the carries Macs, I would go play with one and see
what you think.
A couple of other comments: One person said the G5 was dated, or something
similar. That is just plain wrong. The G5 is very fast and OS 10.3 is an
extremely up to date OS - ahead of XP in my view. Another person said that
if it is the Mini that is tempting you don't go that way. With that I would
agree. As a computer for surfing the Internet and email and light duty
document work the Mini would be great. But for heavy duty photo work you
would be asking a lot of the Mini.
Chuck

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
> That said, if you are expecting a night and day difference, it isn't there,
> it is mostly which experience and interface you prefer. If you live near an
> Apple store, or any store the carries Macs, I would go play with one and see
> what you think.


....particularly as Adobe are making their interface on the PC more and
more Mac-like. Elements 3 is very un-Windowsy.

> A couple of other comments: One person said the G5 was dated, or something
> similar. That is just plain wrong. The G5 is very fast and OS 10.3 is an
> extremely up to date OS - ahead of XP in my view. Another person said that
> if it is the Mini that is tempting you don't go that way. With that I would
> agree. As a computer for surfing the Internet and email and light duty
> document work the Mini would be great. But for heavy duty photo work you
> would be asking a lot of the Mini.

I have a mini on order, I don't expect it to match my 2.1 GHz Athlon for
photo editing work, but as you said that's not what it's there for -
it's a computer designed for consuming not producing

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete Fenelon wrote:
> C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
>
>>That said, if you are expecting a night and day difference, it isn't there,
>>it is mostly which experience and interface you prefer. If you live near an
>>Apple store, or any store the carries Macs, I would go play with one and see
>>what you think.
>
>
>
> ...particularly as Adobe are making their interface on the PC more and
> more Mac-like. Elements 3 is very un-Windowsy.
>
>
>>A couple of other comments: One person said the G5 was dated, or something
>>similar. That is just plain wrong. The G5 is very fast and OS 10.3 is an
>>extremely up to date OS - ahead of XP in my view. Another person said that
>>if it is the Mini that is tempting you don't go that way. With that I would
>>agree. As a computer for surfing the Internet and email and light duty
>>document work the Mini would be great. But for heavy duty photo work you
>>would be asking a lot of the Mini.
>
>
> I have a mini on order, I don't expect it to match my 2.1 GHz Athlon for
> photo editing work, but as you said that's not what it's there for -
> it's a computer designed for consuming not producing
>
> pete

Yes, for consuming a lot of money for not that much computer. I like
the size, and if one already has a monitor, keyboard, and printer, and
pointing device, it is a practical alternative. Still, one can buy a
faster PC with monitor, speaker, printer, and mouse for about the same
money. Of course, it will take up more space... In the end, it is a
matter of personal needs, and preferences.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <oV1Id.1456$YD5.721@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Howard" <wettstein@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Culd you say a bit more about the G5's.How are they showing their age? Is
> there stuff in the PC world that improves on those age-deficiencies?
> Thanks again.
> Howie

It's over a year old and still very expensive. At least for Java/UNIX
software development tasks, the dual 2GHz G5 doesn't keep pace with
upper-middle range x86 boxes. It's not even twice as fast as a dual
1.25GHz G4, which is disappointing considering the age and price
differences.


>
> "Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:mcmurtri-072C4F.23045920012005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> > In article <3r1Id.1631$r27.342@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Howard" <wettstein@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> >> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> >> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> >> Best,
> >> Howie
> >
> > Go to an Apple store and play with a desktop Mac to see if it's right
> > for you. Recently MS has been catching up in their GUI while Apple has
> > been catching up in their bug count.
> >
> > The dual proc G5 desktops are elegant marvels of engineering but their
> > age is showing and their prices are still high. They're probably not a
> > good buy unless they have a specific feature that you need - low noise,
> > Unix OS, digital A/V, etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The G5 I would only rate as nice but not quite there because the standard
video card is absolute rubbish.

<huntzing@pica.army.mil> wrote in message
news:1106337854.907805.198230@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Howard wrote:
>> Could you say a bit more about the G5's. How are they showing their
> age? Is
>> there stuff in the PC world that improves on those age-deficiencies?
>
> The G5 is hardly "showing its age", unless you're the geektype who buys
> the latest hardware every 4 months. If that's the case, then the
> answer to your question is that your current hardware's good enough for
> what you need, regardless of its CPU or OS or anything else
>
> Now I will grant you that Apple's G4 CPU did deserve its "long in
> tooth" criticism. Which is why an Apple laptop or mini isn't the best
> choice for doing Photoshop production on.
>
> The most important change in the G5 wasn't really its higher-than-G4
> clockspeeds, but instead was the system architectural changes that
> accompanied the chip. These changes did more than merely eliminated
> the huge bandwidth bottlenecks that the G4 suffered from: it blew the
> doors off of bandwidth availability, which allows for future growth.
> If the G5 is "showing its age", then this factor is the deathknell for
> *all* Intel CPU's.
>
>
> If you want a lightweight dose of geek stuff (with some topping from
> Apple's marketing department) see:
> http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html
>
> The KISS take-away is that if the G4's bandwidth was a dirt road, the
> Pentium was at best a two-lane highway, whereas the G5 is a 4-lane
> German Autobahn.
>
>
> IMO, I think the real underlying comment here was a hit on its price.
> Apple has traditionally been criticized for being more expensive.
> Yeah, BMW's cost more too, and that's what a smaller production base
> will always do to a product.
>
> There's going to be difference in design ...both hardware and OS...that
> vary in their significance, depending on the person examining them, and
> there will inevitably be differences in the price tag too. The final
> cost:benefit decision is always up to you.
>
> Personally, I appreciate the G5's nearly silent operation, as well as
> the OS is effectively immune from all of the windows OS malware.
>
> My suggestion for an Apple machine to consider would be the DP 1.8GHz
> G5 PowerMac. It lists for $1999 but needs another ~$170 to bump up the
> RAM by +1GB. Do check to see if you can qualify for one of the
> discount groups (EDU/etc), as this will cut around $150 off the price.
> This system (with 1GB of RAM) should slice thru most Photoshop tasks
> quite respectfully, and I'd not expect to have to touch the machine for
> any upgrades for at least 3 years. I've used the Single Processor
> version of this machine and ~20MB Photoshop files aren't a problem. I
> did throw a 1GB photoshop file to see what it would do and while it did
> cause it to pause and chew, it did swallow.
>
> -hh
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:36:18 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:


>The G5 I would only rate as nice but not quite there because the standard
>video card is absolute rubbish.

I went to see a friends G5 and was shocked that it was the loudest
computer I've ever heard.


Frank
http://newmex.com/f10

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <pbs2v0pgd5t89srobvdt309jtcm5tfuqmp@4ax.com>,
Frank Vuotto <deepthrob@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:36:18 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> >The G5 I would only rate as nice but not quite there because the standard
> >video card is absolute rubbish.
>
> I went to see a friends G5 and was shocked that it was the loudest
> computer I've ever heard.
>
>
> Frank
> http://newmex.com/f10

I bet the inside is lit up red too. It means that the air flow panel is
missing. Hopefully he didn't throw it out with the packaging.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1/21/05 12:21 PM, in article
1106331696.854567.9790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "Howard"
<Howard.Wettstein@ucr.edu> wrote:

One thing: could you say a
> word about how OSX helps with organizing photos and the like. Also,
> networking, if you know about that. I'm having all sorts of headaches
> with Windows networking.
> Howie
>
If you buy a new Mac now with OSX it will include the new iPhoto program
which looks to be a pretty good organizer. The current version is good but
not up to pro standards. The new version will display raw's from most
cameras, which the current version won't.
As far as networking - I have an Apple Airport Extreme wireless network and
it is a breeze to set up and maintain. Not only is my Mac on it but XP and
Linux PC's as well. Macs will definitely work on other brand networks as
well but I have limited experience beyond the Airport network. As far as I
am concerned networking is a black art!
Chuck

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"chris" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:NB1Id.2777$rp1.272@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Howard wrote:
>> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
>> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
>> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>> Best,
>> Howie
>
>
> OSX is easier to use but for photo editing, there isn't any advantage as
> long as you use good software, such as photoshop. I have a powerbook but I
> hardly think of using it at home. I do everything on my WinXP PC. If I had
> the money, I'd upgrade my current Athlon XP desktop to Athlon64 and would
> cost less than a Mac mini. If you're thinking of the Mac mini, be
> forwarned that it's based on ibook, i.e. very slow with no memory cache,
> and need to increase the memory to at least 5120MB. It has no keyboard and
> mouse. If you want an exotic OS, go for it but it's going to be very slow.
> You get what you pay for. As for iMac, I don't see why I want to have an
> expensive LCD built into a CPU that I certainly want to upgrade the speed
> every two years.

I have a 3GHz PC in my study (which I am using now), and an iMac G5
downstairs in the kitchen. I am mainly a PC user, but the Mac is great. It
is fast and has a fantastic screen (1.8GHz 20"). It is not quite as fast as
the PC running Photoshop, but it actually feels nicer to use. Mac OS X is
excellent - it is a joy to use and is rock solid as well. I've only been
using it for a month or so, but I like it more than Windows.

On the other hand, I need a Windows machine for other things.

Both machines work well with each other across a wireless network.

I bought the iMac with no intention of upgrading it in 2 years time. In 2
years time it will be obsolete and will have been passed onto one of my
children as will this PC.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

huntzing@pica.army.mil wrote:
> Howard wrote:
>
>>Could you say a bit more about the G5's. How are they showing their
>
> age? Is
>
>>there stuff in the PC world that improves on those age-deficiencies?
>
>
> The G5 is hardly "showing its age", unless you're the geektype who buys
> the latest hardware every 4 months. If that's the case, then the
> answer to your question is that your current hardware's good enough for
> what you need, regardless of its CPU or OS or anything else
Agreed, the G5 is every bit as good as a Xeon with 1.5x the clock speed.
For photo work I think a critical advantage of the Mac is OSX's far better
security and memory management. Who in his right mind will store valuable
images on a virus-infiltrated PC?
You could say a modern Mac combines the robustness and security of Linux with
the traditional we-know-what-is-good-for-you attitude of Apple. For a price.
>
> Now I will grant you that Apple's G4 CPU did deserve its "long in
> tooth" criticism. Which is why an Apple laptop or mini isn't the best
> choice for doing Photoshop production on.
For image processing work the G4's caches were often too small, yes.
>
> The most important change in the G5 wasn't really its higher-than-G4
> clockspeeds, but instead was the system architectural changes that
> accompanied the chip. These changes did more than merely eliminated
> the huge bandwidth bottlenecks that the G4 suffered from: it blew the
> doors off of bandwidth availability, which allows for future growth.
> If the G5 is "showing its age", then this factor is the deathknell for
> *all* Intel CPU's.
The G5 was derived from the IBM Power4 processor, *definitely* not a backward
chip! But Intel and especially AMD are not idiots either. In fact the AMD
Opteron is IMO superior to the G5 for image processing.
>
>
> The KISS take-away is that if the G4's bandwidth was a dirt road, the
> Pentium was at best a two-lane highway, whereas the G5 is a 4-lane
> German Autobahn.
To carry the analogy further: a 4-lane autobahn with two lanes under
construction, OS X 10.3 still doesn't support 64bit addressing. So much for
'the first 64bit PC'.
>
> My suggestion for an Apple machine to consider would be the DP 1.8GHz
> G5 PowerMac. It lists for $1999 but needs another ~$170 to bump up the
> RAM by +1GB. Do check to see if you can qualify for one of the
There is a catch: the 1.8 model has less memory slots, so is less upgradable.
Does anyone know how efficient Photoshop makes use of a dual G5?

-- Hans

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <11dbf$41f17788$3e3aaa83$5338@news1.versatel.nl>, HvdV
<nohanz@svi.nl> wrote:

> > The KISS take-away is that if the G4's bandwidth was a dirt road, the
> > Pentium was at best a two-lane highway, whereas the G5 is a 4-lane
> > German Autobahn.
> To carry the analogy further: a 4-lane autobahn with two lanes under
> construction, OS X 10.3 still doesn't support 64bit addressing. So much for
> 'the first 64bit PC'.

osx 10.3 supports 64 bit addressing. the g5 can accept 8 gigs of ram
and osx can see all of it and use all of it.

 

[Chris]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright wrote:
> On 1/21/05 12:21 PM, in article
> 1106331696.854567.9790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "Howard"
> <Howard.Wettstein@ucr.edu> wrote:
>
> One thing: could you say a
>
>>word about how OSX helps with organizing photos and the like. Also,
>>networking, if you know about that. I'm having all sorts of headaches
>>with Windows networking.
>>Howie
>>
>
> If you buy a new Mac now with OSX it will include the new iPhoto program
> which looks to be a pretty good organizer. The current version is good but
> not up to pro standards. The new version will display raw's from most
> cameras, which the current version won't.
> As far as networking - I have an Apple Airport Extreme wireless network and
> it is a breeze to set up and maintain. Not only is my Mac on it but XP and
> Linux PC's as well. Macs will definitely work on other brand networks as
> well but I have limited experience beyond the Airport network. As far as I
> am concerned networking is a black art!
> Chuck


I don't think iPhoto is that good. It's way over-rated for no obvious
reason. Has it been updated to categorize off-line photos? It's set up
to easily order prints from APPLE; making their wallet puffy by merely
sending your order to Ofoto (Kodak) to process. You can't share photos
without the $99 .Mac account. Now the new v.5 supports RAW. Once I have
it, I'll check out how slow it would handle 20D RAW files. ;P

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Howard wrote:
> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> Best,
> Howie
>
>

I'm 54 years old, and I've been a die hard PC/Windows user
since they came out. I was also a confessed Apple/MAC hater
for many years. I'm a senior computer engineer, and work in
IT, for a large communications company. To even speak of
MACs, among my peers is a death sentence. One co-worker,
who is a closet MAC user, talked me into trying one of the
new iMACs, when they introduced OS X. I became interested
because I heard OS X was based on BSD (aka Unix) roots, and
similar, but easier to use, than Linux. I was impressed
with the OS, but I thought the system was slow. I sold it
after about two months, and went back to PC's. With all the
recent problems, and very serious security concerns that
come with using Windows 2000 / XP, I started considering
alternatives. I've had a love-hate relationship with Linux
over the years, but finally ruled that out. I decided to
try another MAC, now that OS X has matured, and the more
advanced hardware became available.

I purchased a Power MAC G5 Tower, Dual 65-bit CPU, running
OS X Panther. I have to say, I'm hooked! This system runs
as great as it looks! It is very fast, very quiet, very
powerful! I also installed Microsoft's Virtual PC v 7, with
Windows XP Professional, for those times I get insecure, and
feel the need to go back. I'm also very impressed with it's
performance. It is truly a usable alternative to having two
machines. I've used similar virtual software in the past,
like VM Ware, on a PC, running XP, to emulate Win2k, Win98,
and Linux systems. They were all unusably slow, and no
comparison to the G5 / Virtual PC combination!

It is common to criticized MAC's, especially if you're not
familiar with them. It is also politically correct in many
tech-circles. But if you have an open mind, and can afford
the hardware (yes, it's not cheap), then I think you should
consider a system similar to the one I purchased. It will
free you from the preoccupation of maintaining your
hardware/OS, and give you more time to devote to
photography, or anything else you do on your computer!

Bill Crocker