My Sony Vaio notebook (P3 1ghz, 512mb RAM, 60gb HD) is starting to show its age. As much as I'm not a huge Apple fan, I've been looking at the Powerbook G4, mainly because I've heard they are excellent for photo editing, and the build/ergonomics are freaking sweet. I'd want the 15" version with 1gb of RAM and a 100gb HD. But I honestly prefer Windows (some may want my head for saying that...) and I'm sure I can find a sweet Windows notebook for way less than a Powerbook. So my question is...Do Apples perform photo editing (I use PS CS) appreciably better than a well equipped Windows machine? By appreciable, I mean, is the extra cost worth it? I honestly can't imagine that being the case, but maybe some of you out there have experience with both...

Oh yeah, it has to be a notebook...Lord willing, my career after graduation will involve extensive travelling/living abroad, so a nice desktop won't really work for me.

Considering most editing houses use Macs, I think that speaks for itself.

it really does come down to personal preference and you are going to get just as many saying one or the other.

Basically I look at, where is your money invested in the Software. Can you afford to purchase replacement software (legally), for a Mac, if you already have registerable versions of software.

If money isn't any barrier then go the Mac.

Myself, I too am a Windows person and have been since the first version was release and even before, used precursors to windows machines.

If you honestly love Windows, you should stick with Windows. You may resent the differences in the Mac.

I've heard it said that hardware geeks love Windows machines, but software users love Macs.

Personally, I love my Mac. The one I'm typing on right now is two years old, and I just dropped it last week and destroyed the latch, so I've got the new highest-end 15" Powerbook sitting in its box next to me as I speak. As soon as I'm finished posting this message, I'm going to pull it out of the box, connect a firewire cable between them, and go to bed. When I wake up my new computer will be set up exactly like my current computer, and I can continue as if nothing ever happened. That's another thing that's so sweet about the Mac.

I haven't used photo editing on a Windoze machine in about ten years, so I can't compare the two. I can't imagine the difference in speed is THAT noticeable, unless you're Pixar and trying to render 3-D images, or crunch massive video or sound files.

However, the Mac *IS* sweet.

My Sony Vaio notebook (P3 1ghz, 512mb RAM, 60gb HD) is starting to show its age. As much as I'm not a huge Apple fan, I've been looking at the Powerbook G4, mainly because I've heard they are excellent for photo editing, and the build/ergonomics are freaking sweet. I'd want the 15" version with 1gb of RAM and a 100gb HD. But I honestly prefer Windows (some may want my head for saying that...) and I'm sure I can find a sweet Windows notebook for way less than a Powerbook. So my question is...Do Apples perform photo editing (I use PS CS) appreciably better than a well equipped Windows machine? By appreciable, I mean, is the extra cost worth it? I honestly can't imagine that being the case, but maybe some of you out there have experience with both...


The following is personal OPINION, I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing about it!

The Apple mystique is an urban legend. The "ease" of Macs began back in the days of the DOS command line when it truly was easier. That is no longe the case and hasn't been for over a decade.

Macs are still entrenched in many arts houses due to inertia. Truth is that Windows versions of traditional "Mac software" surpassed sales of Mac versions many years ago. Ease of use is only better on the Mac for those who want one and only one way to do things. Windows gives users many ways to do a task, Mac chooses one way for you. To me, that is very limiting, for others its a godsend.

I've worked in both shops, Windows and Apple (as well as UNIX and VMS!). Macs require the same amount of support, they die and crash just as easily as Windows pre-XP. Windows XP is more stable and faster than the current MacOS X, cheaper to buy, cheaper to use, easier to find software for.

Macs do have an advantage in networking with themselves. The reality of Windows XP peer-to-peer is complex and unreliable. Macs are almost plug and play. For other than Apple networks however, Macs have trouble while Windows plays nice.

Macs tend to be much more stylish. Some people like that, others refuse to pay more for stylish. Macs don't suffer from anywhere near the same number of viruses or spy/adware due to its very small market share. I've never had a problem with my Windows machines but I keep the virus, firewall, and spyware checkers up-to-date. If you get lax, these evils will bite you in the backside very quickly!

I really see no advantage at all to getting a Mac especially if you like Windows. As with anything else, ask yourself what you will gain by going with a new "start from the ground up" system.

I agree with Michael and will add that you will have to purchase new software licenses to go with mac. You can't take your windows photoshop license (assuming you have one) and use it to install it on a mac.

I was a die-hard PC user since I was 15, but after a month on OS X I sold all but one of my PCs (I had 6) and got a Powerbook. I didn't buy it for the hardware, I bought it for the OS. The power of Unix is hard to beat, especially with the best GUI on the market.

Are they friendlier? No, the OS makes more sense and has many cool little features that make working on it LOGICAL. Just about anything that you think you should be able to do you probably can do. I was writing several gigabytes of data off of the network onto my powerbook and decided to move the folder in the middle of the copying process. It moved it and just continued the copy operation in its new location. Windows would throw a permissions error. Simple, transparent things like that abound.

Networking is a dream, I open the PB, and within seconds I'm on a wireless network. Oh, that's another thing that took some getting used to from PC laptops, I never turn the Apple off, I close the lid, the HD parks, and it goes in the bag. Then I open it and it starts up immediately, detects any connected networks, and you don't miss a beat.

Battery life is not an issue, I left it asleep in its bag for three days and lost about 3% of battery capacity. On my 12 inch I get 3-3.5 hours battery life running at full processor speed with bluetooth and wifi turned on.

As for image editing, yes, they are better. The entire OS is OpenGL accelerated, and color managed. You calibrate your monitor once through the system prefs or through a hardware solution and ALL software you run on it use the settings.

Only thing you'll miss is the right mouse button, but Newegg.com sells the excellent Logitech MX900 bluetooth mouse for 70 bucks.

And Expose is the best way to switch and manage multiple windows that I have ever used or seen. One button press and all the windows on the machine zoom out and you click on the one you want to bring to the front, thanks to having the entire OS based on PDF and OpenGL. Besides looking cool, it is a dream for someone like mee who works visually. Finding the button that corresponds to the right window on the Windows task bar was always a pain for me, now I just click on the window I want and get right back to work.

Eleven years on DOS and Windows and I have never been as productive as I am on a Mac, simnply because I ENJOY using it.

I am a long time Mac user, but I've spent enough time on PCs to know that you can do anything on a PC that you can do on a Mac... some processes are more efficient on a Mac some on a PC... to reap the benefits of such efficiencies you have to really know your computer well. So, if you know PCs better as it sounds like you do, then why not stick with it unless you really are lusting after a beeeutiful new powerbook (they are mighty pretty). You will most likely have to buy at least some new software licenses as others have pointed out, if you go Mac. Plus there will be a bit of a learning curve, although it's nothing even my mom can't handle.

I'd like to argure that there is not only one way to do things on a mac, maybe for the unfamiliar it would appear that way, but you can geek out until your eyes bleed with macs. Their Unix based OS is very very flexible, if that's your kinda thing. If you like Dos, stick to PCs.

I'll also add that even though nobody stated otherwise, yes Macs do break down. My Powerbook just got out of the shop... I used it so much over the past 2 years that I killed the 60GB HD. Luckily I cloned it recently (very easy to do BTW). I bought an Apple Care package with my PBook and they just replaced the hard drive ($100+) and upgraded my OS ($100+ value) in less than 2 working days. Plus they are great on the phone helping me out with stuff, although their hours could be better (not 24 hrs). Oh yeah, this cost me NOTHING... Whether you get a PC or a Mac, if you get a laptop I recommend a good warranty!

I, too, want to take issue with the assertion that there is only "one way" to do things on a mac. I've actually found that to be true only for Microsoft software on the Windows platform. I've struggled with programs on the PC at my school, searching through the help files looking for how to do some simple, logical thing I want to do, only to discover that they've decided that since MOST people don't do what I'm asking, they haven't even made it possible to do. I have never had that issue on my mac.

Oh and I forgot to add... Macs basically are imuned to viruses! there've been a few that affect them, but literally we're talking about a handful of know viruses for Macs compared to the Thousands that can affect PC's Major Bonus!

I learned on Apple computers. And I've used both, as a professional, although it's been a while since I seriously used a Mac. I have to agree with Michael, that it's a myth that Macs are better for graphics. There was a time that it was true. But I don't believe it's the case anymore. For a while, in the late nineties, I was using both at the same time. And while the Macs were a bit better - then - there wasn't anything I couldn't also do on my PC. Now, my guess is that Adobe is probably putting more into the Windows versions of their software than the Mac version. There are way more PCs out there and money talks.

One thing no one has mentioned yet is all the software that's available for PC's only. The PC market is huge. For that reason there's way more software available. Of course, all the big software packages are pretty much equally available. But I keep finding cool image management, RAW conversion, and sharing software that isn't made for Macs.

I think OS X is beautiful. I've used it a little and I love it. There's none of that artistic quality in a PC. But, I don't really care how pretty my computer and OS are. I'd rather get more power for less money.

Any moment now I'm waiting for Rick to pop in and annouce "Them's fightin words!!"

:)

That hippy? I'm surprised he hasn't jumped in to advocate a pure Linux, AMD machine.

Well like I said in the beginning, even though I'm a die hard mac fan, I'm not about to argue anyone who truly loves their Windows PC away from it. The PC can do all the major things that the Mac can do, unless you're looking for the highest end graphics like movie studios use.

My brother-in-law is a mathematician and scientific consultant for Apple, has developed algorhythms used in their machines, and has demonstrated in side-by-side demonstrations the power of an Apple over a PC in tests. (The last one I personally saw was probably 2001.) But in all honesty, I think the speed and power benefits are only noticeable in large-scale projects over long spans of time. For our average photography needs, there's really no difference.

More food for thought:

http://homepage.mac.com/mstamper77/CoolStuff%20folder/CoolStuff/

A long and detailed write-up that touches on just a small portion of how OS X works. It really is an awesome OS, but most people only scratch the surface of what it can do.

three things keep me from switching to Mac.
1. No right-click menus and redundancy-I love this feature of Windows
2. Much fewer games for Mac than for PC
3. You can't build your own Mac-building screaming machines is my other hobby outside of photography.
two things that tempt me to switch to Mac
1. Fewer crashes
2. Fewer viruses to worry about

The PC can do all the major things that the Mac can do, unless you're looking for the highest end graphics like movie studios use.

FWIW, the major studios have almost all moved to Linux workstations for their work now. Macs (and Windows) are used for small scale stuff only.

Lionheart,

Not only do macs have a right-click menu, it is in many ways more functional than it is on Windows.

Michael,

Pixar has moved almost their entire production system onto OS X, due to many of the pros discussed in this thread. Most studios still use OS X for production, with Linux only being used for render farms. Weta Digital for example (Lord of the Rings) uses Maya and Shake extensively running on OS X. Most of the industry is like that, produce on Macs, render on Linux. Smaller studios tend to run Windows boxes with either 3DS Max or Lightwave on them, but the majority of the really prominent houses run OS X.

The game industry is different, though it is a bit comical that Microsoft's next generation XBox runs G5s and their development kit consists of modified Apple G5 dual processor machines... :D

As for performance, different systems for different industries. Yes, on the desktop a Mac falls behind an AMD machine, but there is a reason that many supercomputer clusters are G5s, and Virginia Tech has the fastest university supercomputer in the country, made entirely of off-the-shelf Xserve G5s. But like I said in my first post, I did not buy the Apple for the hardware, I bought it for the best software I have ever used, and as time goes on and I learn more about it, the more I stand behind that statement.

two things that tempt me to switch to Mac
1. Fewer crashes
2. Fewer viruses to worry about
...After all, if we steal the market away from Windows, then the little troublemakers will start writing viruses for Mac. And we're happy with our "mystique" and relative virus immunity. :D



(ps. Would I like more games for the Mac? At one time, yes. But then came the internet to suck up more leisure time than I can afford. I do not need any more timewasters! ;) )

Michael,

Pixar has moved almost their entire production system onto OS X, due to many of the pros discussed in this thread. Most studios still use OS X for production, with Linux only being used for render farms. Weta Digital for example (Lord of the Rings) uses Maya and Shake extensively running on OS X. Most of the industry is like that, produce on Macs, render on Linux. Smaller studios tend to run Windows boxes with either 3DS Max or Lightwave on them, but the majority of the really prominent houses run OS X.

Pixar's 4 main animation systems are now Linux based. They started on Sun servers and then moved to Intel/Linux: "In all, the blade systems contains 1,024 Intel 2.8GHz Xeon processors, and it runs the open-source Linux operating system."

From ILM, Dreamworks, and Sony: "Industrial Light and Magic replaced RISC-based computers running Unix on artist workstations from SGI, choosing instead Dell desktops containing Intel chips and Linux software. ILM also installed a render farm running AMD's Athlon processors. Other Intel-Linux installations took place at DreamWorks and Sony Pictures' Imageworks."

This Linux use is based more on the fact that all of their home grown systems were written with pure Unix. Linux conversion is relatively simple. MacOS X is Unix-based but it takes a lot more work to convert due to all of the proprietary libraries. Linux is also a lot cheaper. As these apps are well known to the the users, MacOS (and Windows) really bring nothing to the table in exchange for the much higher costs and proprietary lock-in.

None of this, of course, is really related to using PhotoShop at home!

Render farms, yes, that's what I said in my post above. But render farms are not what create these movies, the artists don't work on them, they work on SGIs, Macs, Xeon workstations, etc. Yes, obviously every studio out there is switching to Linux RENDER FARMS, it makes sense, but that's not a sign that everyone is using it for the actual production, they are simply using it for more cost-effective and timely output of the final content. The actual creation of said content is made on different platforms for different reasons, and OS X is still one of the top dogs in that area. Render farms are rented out like cars for god's sake, using that as an example says nothing about the actual making of what we see on the screen.

As for ILM, they never were an Apple house with the exception of their 2D artists. They have always been and SGI house, and the move to Intel was no big surprise, as SGI has lost pretty every customer with the exception of the NOAA, who seems to be the only client keeping the company afloat. SGI stopped being competitive years ago, for a multitude of reason.

No matter what though, we are digressing.

The original poster of this thread was presented with plenty of strong arguments for both sides, the choice will come down to what meets their needs. I could, and would love to, debate the business choices of big-name animation and special effects houses all day long, working for one used to be a dream and I still follow them very closely. So if anyone wants to continue this discussion, let's do it either over PM or email, unless it relates directly to the subject of the original post.

Told you this would happen.

I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion, although I have nothing more to add. I've learned a lot, thank you.

And Peter, you made me laugh out loud. :D

Honestly I was hoping for a lot more name calling and profanity...I'm very disappointed.

From what I've seen, no pc maker has a notebook as sweet as the Powerbooks, but they also aren't nearly as expensive...But I think I like the idea of challenging myself with learning a new OS. I successfully dual booted Linux on my first attempt and figured it out fairly quickly, so I think learning OSX shouldn't be too bad. Now I just need money. Anybody want to buy a kidney?

Honestly I was hoping for a lot more name calling and profanity...I'm very disappointed.

From what I've seen, no pc maker has a notebook as sweet as the Powerbooks, but they also aren't nearly as expensive...But I think I like the idea of challenging myself with learning a new OS. I successfully dual booted Linux on my first attempt and figured it out fairly quickly, so I think learning OSX shouldn't be too bad. Now I just need money. Anybody want to buy a kidney?

Panasonic ToughBook CF-W2
small, light, 1.1 GHz Centrino is almost as powerful as my old 3 GHz P4 desktop.
Weighs 2.6 lbs with battery, averages 6 hours daily use at my office before plugging in. It has a very bright viewscreen, twice as bright as my older P4 laptop, which weighed close to 6 lbs with batteries. May not be as powerful as the Powerbooks, but they're extremely portable and almost as pretty. I gave up my Ipaq PDA because it was about as easy to port my new laptop with me everywhere. And it plays Doom3, Halo, and Freelancer adequately :D

Oh yeah, it has to be a notebook...Lord willing, my career after graduation will involve extensive travelling/living abroad, so a nice desktop won't really work for me.
DownByFive, it occurs to me that if you're buying the machine now that you plan to travel abroad with, you should really take into account where you're going to live, and whether you will be able to find a place to get your computer serviced, should it need it down the road.

DownByFive, it occurs to me that if you're buying the machine now that you plan to travel abroad with, you should really take into account where you're going to live, and whether you will be able to find a place to get your computer serviced, should it need it down the road.

Yeah, I've thought about that a lot....When I was going to school in Malta last year, my hard drive died. I ended up buying one cheap online from a US retailer and had my mom ship it over with some other junk. Popped that baby in, and I was back up and running. But not all service is quite that easy....

Wow! Someone else who has been to Malta!

Wow! Someone else who has been to Malta!

Oh yeah! I was there for nine months. I freaking loved that place. Sure it's just a hunk of limestone floating out in the ocean, but it has a certain charm.

I was only there for 3 days, loved it though. I think it had the best public transportation of any country I ever visited and Pacevile (I think I'm spelling it right, pronouced pachaville) was just fantastic on a Saturday night. I'm headed to Cyprus for my honeymoon in May!

My Sony Vaio notebook (P3 1ghz, 512mb RAM, 60gb HD) is starting to show its age. As much as I'm not a huge Apple fan, I've been looking at the Powerbook G4, mainly because I've heard they are excellent for photo editing, and the build/ergonomics are freaking sweet. I'd want the 15" version with 1gb of RAM and a 100gb HD. But I honestly prefer Windows (some may want my head for saying that...) and I'm sure I can find a sweet Windows notebook for way less than a Powerbook. So my question is...Do Apples perform photo editing (I use PS CS) appreciably better than a well equipped Windows machine? By appreciable, I mean, is the extra cost worth it? I honestly can't imagine that being the case, but maybe some of you out there have experience with both...

Oh yeah, it has to be a notebook...Lord willing, my career after graduation will involve extensive travelling/living abroad, so a nice desktop won't really work for me.

Interesting question. It's just too bad that I step in it so late (I haven't been arround for the past few days).

I am a Mac enthusiast at heart and I have almost exclusively owned Mac's (I owned an IBM Thinkpad as my main personal computer from 1998 to 2002...) but I have been working on both platforms for the past 15 years.

Here are few things to consider: If you are a gamer forget about the Mac, the game offering is marginal at best.

Mac's do are easier to use. Obviously, the difference isn't nearly as dramatic as it was in the DOS days but MS windows XP remain a so-so copy of OSX.

Mac are way more logical. Operations are straight forward and just make sense.

The integration of Software and Hardware with Apple is totally seamless, allowing for a global experience that PC's simply can't match.

Mac's arent any faster than PC's and they never really were maybe except at some point in the 90's. Moreover, Mac's and PC's provide an highly similar level of "raw power" for a given computer category (workstations vs workstations, laptops vs laptops and so on...)

Apple obviously care about design and the artsy aspect of their products but their price tag also have a lot to do with craftmanship, care for small details, actual built quality. I am not saying that you can't have that on a PC but it comes to a price (I am thinking about Alienware here for instance....).

Considering all that, the Powerbook and a PC laptop will both bring you from point A to point B but they will do so in a different way. If you try the Powerbook, you are likely to like it very much.

Few more thoughts:

To Photo-John, you said:
"Now, my guess is that Adobe is probably putting more into the Windows versions of their software than the Mac version. There are way more PCs out there and money talks."

I am by no means a software engineer but I don't see your point here. I mean, Photoshop is Photoshop, Adobe have adapted a version to OSX and another to Windows but this is basically one single software. Also, the ratio of Mac owners who are likely to use Photoshop is much higher than it is with PC's owners.


To Michael Fanelli: I don't see why art houses would want to switch from Mac to PC's. I mean, if it's aint broken don't fix it. I don't see the advantages that PC's would provide them over Mac's and/or the disadvantages from using Apple products.


best regards to all

Seb

Yeah, you definitely pay dearly for stylishness. I'm not a gamer, so I don't really care about that, and I was a computer tech on Windows servers and workstations, so I feel totally comfortable with Windows software/PC hardware issues. Ugh. Decisions, decisions...

Wait, I have another question...Does anyone have a Lowepro Computrekker? If so, what computer do you have and how does it fit? My computer just barely fits in my Computrekker, so a widescreen notebook may be too tall. But I'm wondering if the notebook wasn't as wide (or deep I guess), maybe a widescreen would fit, since it's the depth dimension that makes mine a tight fit up at the top of the compartment (did that make sense?)...I guess I can always take it into a computer store and check it out...

Seb, or Michael, or whever asked the art house question:

In my experience, if a company is primarily about business, meaning numbers, excel, word processing, etc., they will have invested in PCs, and if they move towards graphics they will invest in more PCs.

If a company started out with graphics as their primary focus, they invested in Macs, and they will mostly expand their offices with Macs running excel, word, etc.

Some Mac houses might have a PC or two in the accounting office or in HR. Perhaps some business firms will have a Mac or two in their advertising departments. But if a company starts out on one platform, they'd have to have an awfully compelling reason to switch platforms mid-stream. Some do, but most don't.

Seb, or Michael, or whever asked the art house question:

In my experience, if a company is primarily about business, meaning numbers, excel, word processing, etc., they will have invested in PCs, and if they move towards graphics they will invest in more PCs.

If a company started out with graphics as their primary focus, they invested in Macs, and they will mostly expand their offices with Macs running excel, word, etc.

Some Mac houses might have a PC or two in the accounting office or in HR. Perhaps some business firms will have a Mac or two in their advertising departments. But if a company starts out on one platform, they'd have to have an awfully compelling reason to switch platforms mid-stream. Some do, but most don't.

This was years ago, but the graphic arts facility I worked at was a strict Mac shop, creating the Yellow Pages. One of Apples largest customers by the way. They hated the idea of Windows because they knew nothing about it. Windows 2000 was out and they thought you still had to use command line to get work done.

The company wanted to dump the Macs because of the high cost and continual maintainance. To make a long story short, the artists who tried out all their apps (Illustrator, PhotoShop, etc.) on the Windows machines were amazed. The Macs crashed quite a few times a day, they thought that was normal for a computer. When they changed application sets on W2K they didn't have to reboot the machine. The applications all looked the same and worked the same way. The W2K machines were faster. There were lots of things they really liked. When it came time to change to Windows, there were fights: not to save the Mac but to see who was more important and deserved the Windows machines more.

Naturally, the choice is much closer now that OS X has come along. I doubt that it makes much sense to switch these days. But there is no longer a Windows/Mac split along business lines. Both machines are chosen for all applications.

Start Rant

The problem I have with Macs is not due to the Mac itself. It is the religious nut cases that prayed to Apple every hour on the hour. These people allowed Apple to fall far behind after the late 80s by screaming "All is well! All is well!" just like that poor sap at the end of Animal House. Apple got very lazy, only now has it caught up. Windows people complain, whine, and scream at MS all the time, nothing is good enough. All sorts of wackos attack Windows with everything they have, exposing flaws. This leads to constant change.

End Rant

Don't worry, this is it for me in this thread! I just couldn't resist this one last time.

This was years ago, but the graphic arts facility I worked at was a strict Mac shop, creating the Yellow Pages. One of Apples largest customers by the way. They hated the idea of Windows because they knew nothing about it. Windows 2000 was out and they thought you still had to use command line to get work done.

The company wanted to dump the Macs because of the high cost and continual maintainance. To make a long story short, the artists who tried out all their apps (Illustrator, PhotoShop, etc.) on the Windows machines were amazed. The Macs crashed quite a few times a day, they thought that was normal for a computer. When they changed application sets on W2K they didn't have to reboot the machine. The applications all looked the same and worked the same way. The W2K machines were faster. There were lots of things they really liked. When it came time to change to Windows, there were fights: not to save the Mac but to see who was more important and deserved the Windows machines more.

Naturally, the choice is much closer now that OS X has come along. I doubt that it makes much sense to switch these days. But there is no longer a Windows/Mac split along business lines. Both machines are chosen for all applications.

Start Rant

The problem I have with Macs is not due to the Mac itself. It is the religious nut cases that prayed to Apple every hour on the hour. These people allowed Apple to fall far behind after the late 80s by screaming "All is well! All is well!" just like that poor sap at the end of Animal House. Apple got very lazy, only now has it caught up. Windows people complain, whine, and scream at MS all the time, nothing is good enough. All sorts of wackos attack Windows with everything they have, exposing flaws. This leads to constant change.

End Rant

Don't worry, this is it for me in this thread! I just couldn't resist this one last time.

Michael,

I will partly agree with you here. Apple did went lazy at some point in the 90's mostly during the era where Steve Job was gone. Not that there was actually something fundamentally wrong with the products but they made quite a lot of bad business/marketing decisions which hurt the company. That being said I find that Microsoft and PC's makers were lazy too at that time. Feel free to disagree but historically, Apple launched a whole lot of innovations that were copied by PC's makers sooner or later and oftenly later than sooner (of course there is the OS,they have been using usb ports years before PC's makers learned to spell it, firewire, the first 64 bits personal computers and the list goes on and on and on). A thing that changed over the past few years is that PC's makers oftenly seems to be more prone to quickly include new technologies in their higher end machines. For this reason, Apple don't hold an edge over the competition as clearly as they used to do for years. Now, Windows XP is a rather good OS but frankly, I don't have much respect for Microsoft as a company. Do you trust Explorer? their Service pack 2? Their software suffer from several weakness and they just don't seem to really do something significant about it.

About the Mac crashing, I won't argue with you there but I must say that I am rather surprised. Mac's aren't flawless but cases of unstable/unreliables machines are quite rare to say the least. I am done with my rambling for tonight :)

regards

Seb

I'm interested in the Computrekker too, anyone!?

If you are going with the PowerBook for sure, keeps some things (rumors) in mind. The new version of OSX (aka Tiger) is supposed to come out anywhere from 2 weeks to 6 months from now. Then you don't have to pay for the upgrade (if you want it) when it comes out. If you go for an iBook (I'm waiting to get my iBook), there is supposed to be a memory upgrade too, where all Macs get at least 512mb of RAM. Rumor here: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/03/20050310143159.shtml.

Start Rant

The problem I have with Macs is not due to the Mac itself. It is the religious nut cases that prayed to Apple every hour on the hour. These people allowed Apple to fall far behind after the late 80s by screaming "All is well! All is well!" just like that poor sap at the end of Animal House. Apple got very lazy, only now has it caught up. Windows people complain, whine, and scream at MS all the time, nothing is good enough. All sorts of wackos attack Windows with everything they have, exposing flaws. This leads to constant change.

End Rant

Don't worry, this is it for me in this thread! I just couldn't resist this one last time.
Hi Michael,

I agree with you there! However, you can't fault the product for the behavior of a few users. And I may be making a blatant generalization/stereotype here, but at that time I think computers mostly remained in the realm of the Geeks, who are possessive about their toys and passionate about being Right. Many of the evangelists blindly supported their product much as fanatics support their religion.

I worked in a Mac house in the 90s, when Apple went through CEOs almost as often as they released new models of beige boxes. My poor boss, who started with Apple in the early eighties (and paid $10,000 for a Quadra 950, which two years later was worth a push out the window), had the right idea when she believed in the product but couldn't stand seeing the company constantly shooting itself in the foot.

I'll bet if Apple had retained Steve Jobs through that time, or at least had made good upper management decisions, that today all the viruses would be made for Mac and the PC users would be lamenting a lack of good games for their platform.

This is fun to talk about. :D