PC & Mac differences

[Tenolian Bell]

No need for a Mac vs PC war. I think we can have a constructive discussion. It?s all about what you feel more comfortable with.

 

One problem is PC users bring PC thinking when using a Mac, and Think Different can be used as more than just a marketing slogan

 

Many PC users don?t understand or seem to reject the need to change your thinking when dealing with a Mac.

 

The Wintel platform is more hardware centric, while the Mac platform is more software centric. PC users complaints about Mac are usually in its hardware, they say ?the Power Mac costs $3,000, but it doesn?t have the latest Ultra Dual Virtual 8 Gigabit DDR800 RAM PCI Express. Which I can easily get for my PC.?

 

In reality what often is going on in the PC world is updating hardware as a way of dealing with poorly designed or incompatible software. While in the Mac world hardware is made to serve software and not the other way around.

 

To be fair PC hardware and software come from thousands of different vendors which a consumer is free to choose from, but there is no real standard for how it all works together. So incompatibility will happen. While in the Mac world you have few choices from fewer vendors, but there is a standard for how it all works together.

 

In the Mac world the philosophy is not so much about having to always have the fastest processor, fastest graphics card, fastest RAM. But about having a complete system that supports the software and works. Apple has never really participated in the processor clock race. Apple felt it wasn?t as important as Intel was making it appear. They felt it more important to pioneer an entirely different processing architecture called Power PC. While it has made slower gains in clock speed than Intel or AMD, it has made huge strides in actual real processing power.

 

Now when most PC users look at the cost of a computer they often compare hardware wise divorcing software from the equation. To be fair Apple is selling thousands of computers while most PC cloner?s are selling hundreds of thousand of computers. Factoring in the scale of economy it costs Apple and those who develop for the Mac platform more than the equivalent PC manufacturer, and that expense is passed on to the customer.

 

You can purchase a $400 e-Machine. But what software comes with it, and how functional is that software? I mean really. To add software the equivalent and as functional as the software that comes packaged in OSX would raise the cost of the PC considerably beyond $400. Which of course is the whole point of having a computer is to use functional software.

 

The ironic side is that Dell and Apple are two of the most profitable of all of computer manufacturers. Dell because it sells more computers than everybody else, sells its computers at a steep discount, and spends very little on R&D. Apple because it spends a lot on R&D, has a small but loyal user base, and doesn?t sell discount computers.

 

To look at a real world example, recently a friend wanted to update one of his PC?s from Window?s 2000 to Window?s XP. But XP wouldn?t install because of incompatibility with his motherboard. He had to buy a new motherboard and switch that out. Then he had to change graphic cards. He had to reinstall his PCI cards and their drivers. All of his software and their drivers. And the drivers to his peripherals for his computer to recognize them. He downloaded XP updates which interfered with some of his software, he had to figure out how to get around that. Finally he had to chase down other miscellaneous bugs and quirks. After a little over a week and hours of work Window?s XP was finally up and running smoothly.

 

He actually seems happy to be getting his hands dirty digging around in his computer?s guts, problem solving software bugs. Bugs from software he bought! Which is fine if that?s what he likes. But it doesn?t work for me.

 

I have another friend who wanted me to help her install OSX on her 400MHZ G3 iMac with only 128 MB of RAM. I told her I didn?t think that was a good idea. OSX is said to work on a 400MHZ G3, but she would need far more RAM. She said she just wanted to use it for word processing, e-mail, burning CD?s, listening to iTunes.

 

I said we can try it, but don?t hold me responsible for any problems. We erased her hard drive and reinitialized it. She told me that was the first time she?d ever done that since she bought the computer. I know PC people who have to reinitialize their hard drive after a couple of years. We installed OSX easily and downloaded all the updates so she now had 10.3.7. We installed Office 2004, Toast Titanium, Adobe Acrobat. I plugged in her peripherals (DVD burner, Digital Camera, Printer, PDA) they were all recognized and interfaced without me loading any drivers.

 

After a couple of hours of downloading software surprisingly despite her six year old hardware and slim RAM, OSX actually worked. I know the reason for this is as Apple continues to improve OSX and its stability they also empower it to scale down and work better on older hardware and slim RAM. Without a doubt it would be faster and snappier on a Dual G5 with 2GB of RAM, but still it works. All of the updated software and new peripherals worked. And the whole process took a couple of hours.

 

When she bought that iMac in 1999 it probably cost around $1,200. Which is considered pretty expensive. But when you add the fact that it still works six years later with its original hardware. The fact that you can upgrade to the newest software, and its ports are still compatible with the newest peripherals. That $1,200 may not be too bad, but I guess it?s a personal judgment.

[DavidSloan]

I think this post may open the flood gate.

 

I don't know that much about computers to really weigh in on this...I do know that I have an aging Dell, about 4 years old, and it works just fine and I never had a single problem. I know that a lot of Mac users get very dramatic about how their Macs never have any problems, but PCs are always crashing and getting viruses, etc. I rarely find that to be true.

 

Speaking out of principal, I wouldn't support a company which exists without a legitimate competitor, and forces its users to only buy products which they produce, thereby charging whatever they want, cause you have no choice. With being a PC user you have the advantage of having a product that works within a consumer's market. Just my opinion, please don't burn me at the stake!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Well, okay. Apple make a top quality product, no doubt, and quite justifiably charge a premium price for it.

 

It isn't really fair to compare hardware reliability, though, particularly hardware interactivity issues. Only one company makes Macs; they only have to be internally consistent. Thousands of companies make PC-ATX hardware. The fact that it works at all is clever; the fact that it works nearly as well as Apple's kit is nothing short of miraculous. That's not an excuse for the problems, but the flexibility and cheapness is a justification for them.

 

But it's just not an oranges and oranges comparison. You can buy a Mac off the shelf, and you can buy a Dell off the shelf which will have a similar level of reliability. Choose to build a PC from components and it'll be cheaper than either, but you are then taking an additional task upon yourself to build and commission the machine. If you don't want to do that, don't do it, it's a choice, but you can't compare a component Wintel build with the experience of picking a box off a shelf with a Mac - or a Dell.

 

As to upgrades. Well, this is something I've counseled people on on this very forum - what do I need to cut? Frankly, not a lot, these days. Anything made in the last five years will deal with DV quite happily. Anything made in the last two will eat it for breakfast, Mac or PC. My current configuration is old, well bedded-in, and as reliable as my camera (I have crashed a DSR-570 - it can be done!). The temptation is to constantly fiddle with PCs; this is a bad idea, as bad as it would be on a Mac. Build it, commission it, and leave it alone. I haven't had the case off mine in two years. Commissioning is often overlooked - you can't go straight from throw-it-together to use it, you have to set it up.

 

The software got a hell of a lot better in 2000, when the home user and professional streams of Windows merged. Having used both, and Red Hat Linux, a lot recently, it is m opinion that the level of reliability is similar. This makes sense: the hardware is abstracted from the programs, so that makes little difference, and Apple then has exactly the same multi-vendor interaction issues as everyone else. Windows up to 98 and ME really was pretty terrible; I really don't have a problem with the functionality of 2000 and XP. People have become too used to criticising Microsoft - there's very little technically wrong with their product, and writing software to run on these multifarious configurations is probably the greatest feat of software engineering ever attempted. The company and its actions are a different matter.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

The only complaint I have against Microsoft is the vunerability to viruses -- in fact, I spent last week rebooting my hard drive for my PC and laptop to clean out all the oddball viruses that had left my two computers a mess -- everytime I shut down, I got several error messages, programs that wouldn't close, etc. The last virus managed to kill my Norton's anti-virus software and my anti-spyware software -- and then not allow me to reinstall it or any new anti-virus software!

 

So I gave up and just wiped the hard drive (after saving everything) and reinstalling all of my software. Which had some advantages actually -- I updated a lot of stuff, threw out a lot of junk, etc. Now my PC is working great, like when I bough it three years ago. But what a waste of time, right in the middle of prep on a feature.

 

Besides Windows' vunerability, the simple truth is that since the majority of the market are PC's, the majority of virus software written is aimed at PC's. I don't think it is so much a case of Macs being better designed as simply not worth the effort of targeting.

 

---

 

A Mac user was asking me how to grab still frames from DVD's so I looked online and read that Mac's DVD player software won't allow frame grabs from DVD's, thanks to pressure from the entertainment industry. How do you Mac users get around that? The article said there was a workaround but it seemed kinda complicated.

[Boone Hudgins]

I'm eagerly awaiting switching over to a Mac, simply because I'm becoming bored with working with PCs, and want to learn a different way of using a computer. Since BeOS was bought out by Palm and shut down, I'm wanting to switch to a Mac. I like a lot of the software that comes with Apples, too.

 

I suppose you could get a screencap of your DVD player, and crop out the border in a graphics program.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

A Mac user was asking me how to grab still frames from DVD's so I looked online and read that Mac's DVD player software won't allow frame grabs from DVD's, thanks to pressure from the entertainment industry.  How do you Mac users get around that?  The article said there was a workaround but it seemed kinda complicated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just run the DVD's in another program called VLC which allows it. :D

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

Phil points out the essential problem with PCs, there are dozens of companies making them while only one makes Mac. This a major plus for the Mac.

 

I don't know how many times I've been called by friends who are trying to install a blasted video card into a PC to capture DV via firewire, and then get the editing software to "talk to" the board for video capture. Oh my gosh what a nightmare. Dozens of PC platforms, dozens of configurations, dozens of edit software packages, dozens of firewire boards :huh:

 

Buy a bloody Mac and every thing is DONE. Turn it on and load the video via the built in fire wire port and use iMovie that came with the Mac to edit. Geez it's so easy.

 

Like I said on the other board the lack of viruses that attack Macs is just wonderful. I open every attachment I get, even when I'm told not to. Ha! I laugh in the face of viruses! Bring them on. My Mac just rejects them, ignores them, doesn't understand them. I use a G4 466 by the way, the smoke gray one. Nice looking machine.

 

I don't have a G5 because this G4 works just nifty for video editing. Hour after hour of work with no crashes.

 

PCs are for accountants and other people that like to look at numbers on a spread sheet. The Mac has always been designed as the creators tool of choice.

 

At the risk of sounding elitist, I think the general populace should stick with PCs. They are cheap and get the job done for most folks.

 

Apple is an excellent example of how a company can be profitable with a 3% market share.

 

Frank.

 

PS: Bill Gates if you're reading this we'll never surrender, NEVER!!!!!

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

Just remember that Apple is a hardware company and Microsoft is a software company. They are not competitors in their main markets (don't flame this... obviously there is _some_ overlap).

 

I have been using PCs all of my life (commodore prior to that :P ) I am a computer scientist by trade, and so I know all of the ins and outs of unix, etc. as well. A real nuts & bolts type guy. I grew tired of the constant "parts parade" as I like to call it. The need to upgrade at least some piece of my PC every year or so... the older parts shuffle downstream into my older machines.. hence the "parade". I bought one of the colourful iBooks for my wife about 4 years ago and she loves it. It is just a cool computer. At 366Mhz, it is still quite useable today, even for video and sound work, although she uses it mainly for web, email, word processing, etc. The thing is, as someone already pointed out, these machines are 5 or 6 years old now and are still quite up to the task. While another person may argue that their PC is in the same boat, I question how many 5-year-old PCs can run the latest version of Windows without having gone through some set of upgrades. Nevertheless, I will concede that it is possible :)

I've recently bought myself a new dual G5 and am extremely happy with it. I deal with computer-ish things all day at work, and at the end of the day, I'm just happy to not have to worry about the parts parade anymore.

 

Anyways.. enough about my situation.. here's an interesting facet of the Mac/PC debate to consider, and I propose it as an exercise to the reader:

 

1. find out what Mac hardware was bleeding edge latest and greatest in 2000.

2. find out what PC hardware was bleeding edge latest and greatest in 2000.

3. find the respective prices of said equipment when it was new.

4. check eBay for the respective prices of said equipment, in used condition, 5 years later.

 

I think as a rule of thumb, you'll find that the Mac gear holds it's value far better than the equivalent PC hardware. This is one thing to consider if you are thinking about buying that new Mini Mac, iBook, Powerbook, or G5 -- you can probably play with it for 2-3 years and then sell it for maybe half of what it cost to buy and put that money into your next system.

 

 

Strange, but about 80% of my friends are Mac users now, and more are switching. Just an observation. Your mileage may vary :)

 

-Sean

Edited January 27, 2005 by Sean McVeigh

[Tenolian Bell]

I think this post may open the flood gate.

Speaking out of principal, I wouldn't support a company which exists without a legitimate competitor, and forces its users to only buy products which they produce, thereby charging whatever they want, cause you have no choice. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I guess you can look at it that way. But look realistically at the landscape. Window's is on 95% of the world computers, while Mac is on about 2%. I guess you can look at the competition between two in different ways.

 

I've heard some Window's users complain they want to use OSX, but feel Apple is holding a monoploy on it by not releasing it for every one's use.

 

I believe Apple wants to have control over its entire platform as a means of developing a superior product through a singular vision.

 

It could be argued that Apple dominates the Power PC platform. But in reality anyone can develop their own OS and software. Linux has Power PC software. In some ways Window's is already set up for Power PC even though they would have to make some critical changes to for it work. I don't think they are too intersted in doing that though as it would upset business alliances.

 

But over all consider the far majority of the world uses Windows, to use a Mac is a conscious choice. Going against what most every one else is doing.

[Tenolian Bell]

Besides Windows' vunerability, the simple truth is that since the majority of the market are PC's, the majority of virus software written is aimed at PC's.  I don't think it is so much a case of Macs being better designed as simply not worth the effort of targeting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I know some people who do like Window's better and there is no problem in that, we all have our preferences. What comes to the heart of what makes them different.

 

When Apple switched from OS9 to OSX they totally rewrote the operating system from the ground up. Essentially throwing away the old one with all of its problems and starting over from a new slate.

 

At first this made a lot of people angry because to switch to OSX from OS9 rendered all your OS9 software dead. You would have to replace it with software written for OSX. The first versions of OSX were very rough and plagued with problems. Now in its third version, many of them have been worked out.

 

The overall result of this is a far better Operating System, with improving functionality. It is very secure, and more difficult to crack into (viruses, spyware, malware). Not impossible but difficult.

 

While Windows isn't really capable of such a sweeping conversion. Too many people use it and that would cause too much havoc. What Microsoft has to end up doing is releasing upgrades which are built on the older Operating System. Any problems that have not been worked out are carried along to newest OS.

[Landon D. Parks]

My opinion on the differnece between mac and pc are this:

 

Software is widely available for PC, Software is not so widely available for mac.

 

Processing speeds on PC are slower, Mac procession speeds are the fastes around to this day (As fare as I know).

 

In general, I like MAC for hard core "Speciallized" work, such as movie editing or CG graphics. But when It comes to a standard home computer, You have a better chance @ getting the games you want for a PC than a MAC.

 

Just my opinion!

[Landon D. Parks]

P.S) I once considered buying a MAC for my Hardcore Applications. The machine I looked at was an off the shelf Dual G5 with the highest processing power, max amount of memory, best graphics card, max amount of HDD, and all the works.

 

Total came to $13,000.00 and some odd pennies.

 

That was WAY beyonf my budget, so I built a computer with Dual Xeon Processors @ 3.2GHz each, 12GB of RAM, Best Windows Graphics card, 20" LCD monitor, Windows XP PRO. My total came to $6,200.00 or so.

 

That PC (Which due to virus issues) is not connected to the internet and is only used to run high end games and software at requires a lot of system speed.

 

My mom charged it all to her creadit card, and we are still paying. But I'd much rather pay $6,000 than $12,000.00 for a PC with pretty much the same power as the MAC I was looking at.

 

And I can play Windows Games (Which is what a majority of games are made for) instead of the limited resourses of MAC Games.

Just my opinion again!

 

MAC is for highly specialized programs, like CG and Video Editing. Where you know you can get Final Cut Pro HD for the MAC and you know you can get pretty much any CG software for MAC.

 

MAC for general use limites your ability to run certain programs and games you may haved loved in windows.

Edited January 27, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

That was WAY beyonf my budget, so I built a computer with Dual Xeon Processors @ 3.2GHz each, 12GB of RAM, Best Windows Graphics card, 20" LCD monitor, Windows XP PRO. My total came to $6,200.00 or so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Would you believe the original Atari game console had 128 bytes of ram?

Not 128KB, not 128MB... 128 bytes. Still seemed pretty fun to me :)

12GB of ram? on a game machine? that must be some game.

 

Your opinion that if you want to do specialized tasks -- buy a mac, and if you want a general purpose machine to play games -- buy a pc is an interesting one. General purpose and gaming are 2 different beasts. Isn't that why there is a market for PS2 and Xbox? Those things cost a couple hundred bucks and will beat the pants off your PC because they are specialized hardware, only one vendor builds them, and software can be written to specifically take advantage of their features... hmm... sounds familiar :)

The days of the general purpose home computer are numbered. Look for more task oriented computers in the coming years.

Edited January 27, 2005 by Sean McVeigh

[Landon D. Parks]

Yes, well some games for PS2 and XBOX I dont care for. And Im more into sim games, which are best played on a computer (Rollercoaster Tycoon 3, The Sims, ect).

 

I also own a PS2 though, which I rarely use. Got it for christmas last year and I think I'v used it five times.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

 

Windows is not intrinsically any more vulnerable to virii than OSX is, it's just more of a target. The permissions system in either is not as good as most Unix-based operating systems, and people's tendency to constantly run them as root (or administrator) doesn't help.

 

It's said a lot, but it bears repeating: all, absolutely all, windows installs should run:

 

- Zone Labs' Zonealarm

- Grisoft's AVG anti-virus

- Spybot Search & Destroy

- Lavasoft Ad-Aware

- A web browser other than Internet Explorer (Mozilla Firefox is good)

- An email client other than Outlook, or look up how to configure Outlook safely.

 

Yes, you need Spybot and Ad-Aware at the same time. All of these things are freely downloadable, and if you aren't running them right now, you have no business complaining about problems. Install these things, update weekly, read the instructions and understand their use. Common misconception: Linux is secure. Linux is no more secure than Windows, it's just that Linux is only really usable by people who know what they're doing, whereas it's possible, even encouraged, to run Windows when you barely know which way up the keyboard goes, with the result that it ends up horribly misconfigured.

 

> While Windows isn't really capable of such a sweeping conversion. Too many people use it and

> that would cause too much havoc. What Microsoft has to end up doing is releasing upgrades which

> are built on the older Operating System. Any problems that have not been worked out are carried

> along to newest OS.

 

Yes, but no more or less than Apple. Win2K represented a sea change in the way it works, as did OSX. Otherwise both companies have just been building on previous releases.

 

Macs are, again, not intrinsically faster than PCs. Apple do go out of their way to make very nice top end hardware, and because of the field they're in, a larger proportion of their sales are top-of-the-range. Nobody's going to buy a Mac as an email browsing machine, although possibly now with the new tiny Macs they will (I know I"m consideirng it). Generally, for the price, PCs will be slightly faster than Macs, with this gap narrowing towards the top of the range models.

 

Phil

[Adam Frisch FSF]

The new small Mac Mini is designed for one thing only: snatching PC users. And with such a low price, I think it will.

[Tenolian Bell]

I reiterate I?m not trying to broadly state that Windows is bad Apple is good. It all comes down to what you prefer. But I have seen some unfair statements about the Mac platform and that is what I am addressing. I feel these statements come from a PC way of thinking which does not apply the same way when dealing with a Mac.

 

I don?t run any spyware, adware, malware. I do have virus protection mostly as a courtesy to help keep from spreading them to the Windows majority. Actually there was one I think two trojen horses written for the Mac in 2004. I encountered one of them during the summer. It snuck in under a file I downloaded. But it sat helpless on my desk top, OSX asked me what did I want to do with it. Apple has made it so that nothing can run itself on the HD without you giving permission.

 

From what I understand Windows has never had a full OS rewrite as dramatic as OS9 to OSX. Of course there have been major changes in its variations, but not a full top to bottom rewrite. It sounds like that?s what they may be doing with the next Windows version (Longhorn), but the hardware requirements exceed the abilities of a $400 dollar Dell sold today. From what I understand to run Longhorn you have to buy an entirely new computer.

[Jon Allen]

Like I said on the other board the lack of viruses that attack Macs is just wonderful.  I open every attachment I get, even when I'm told not to.  Ha! I laugh in the face of viruses! Bring them on.  My Mac just rejects them, ignores them, doesn't understand them.  I use a G4 466 by the way, the smoke gray one.  Nice looking machine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The main reason your mac "ignores" viruses is because they're probably built to infect windows machines- IE lsass and other system processes that aren't built into mac software. Either way, if they're "exe" files, they simply wont run on mac machines- exe is the executable file format in windows. Most programs need to be tailored in the compile to run on a mac or pc- and even more specialized commands to be able to be vicious.

Let's talk about the ability to actually GET a virus on a mac. Macs are about 3% of the entire personal computer world. Even if a mac got a virus, where would it go to? The reason we hear about widespread virus infections is simply because more people and businesses use machines that are common- meaning windows-based computers.

Take it from the virus designer's perspective: why on earth would you build a virus and only have the possibly to hit 3% of all users when you can build a window virus and potentially hit 90+%? Let's face it, it's a matter of hitting the larger target.

[Elhanan Matos]

From what I understand Windows has never had a full OS rewrite as dramatic as OS9 to OSX.

 

Windows XP and 2000 are completely different operating systems from windows 95, 98, and ME. It's a completely different kernel. OSX isn't really a complete rewrite either though, it's like a frankenstein operating system with code taken from all sorts of Unix based operating systems (Unix, Linux, BSD). You can read about it here... http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch.html

 

Mac's are neat computers, but can any mac user name one thing they can do on their mac that I can't do on a PC, faster, cheaper, and better?

[Jon Allen]

Mac's are neat computers, but can any mac user name one thing they can do on their mac that I can't do on a PC, faster, cheaper, and better?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That depends if you define "better" by the terms "faster" and "cheaper".

I used to feel the same way, I started using a mac at work, it really does work "better" than my old PC. A lot of this might be the fact that my home PC was a 2gig p4 with a gig of ram and my work mac is dual g5 2gig, 1.5 GB ram. It really screams at after effects- unlike the ol p4 @ home.

Also, a lot of the movie editing makes more sense in fcp- especially natice codecs and quicktime integration. As opposed to avi's, which seem native to nothing. Also, it doesn't have to "convert" or whatever when you import a movie into your project for it to become usable in premiere.

I should explain that I've really gotten out of the premiere scene, so I don't know what's all new with 1.5.

[Jon Allen]

Seriously though, I find this whole MAC v PC thing equivalent to a refridgerator debate.

The first fridge is twice as big as the other, but holds the exact same amount of food, has modular shevling, and keeps all the food the absolute coldest all the time.

The other keeps each individual piece of food at the exact temperature it needs to be at, never frosts, but costs twice as much as the first.

Take your pick.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Apple has made it so that nothing can run itself on the HD without you giving

> permission.

 

That's a pretty lethal piece of misinformation!

 

I think what you're talking about here is the BSD-style permissions system, but really it just comes down to "how do I get root priviledges" which is just as relevant under Windows, if only people could be persuaded to run as something other than Administrator. Programs don't run on the hard disk, they run on the processor. Programs can never "run themselves"; things that wish to appear to do so usually rely on some other piece of software that's naive enough to execute them - and that's exactly the point. Modern computers are expected to do a lot of things automatically. When you fire up your Apple Mac/Red Hat Linux box/Windows PC, you probably think it isn't running any programs. Actually, because you want it to be able to connect to networks, print, use USB devices, firewire devices, output sound, play video, and give you a nice graphical desktop it's running dozens of programs, and most security holes are problems with one of those. Claiming that Apple has waved some magic wand over OSX to forestall these problems is nuts - there just aren't as many people laying siege to that particular castle.

 

Phil

[Elhanan Matos]

MAC is for highly specialized programs, like CG and Video Editing. Where you know you can get Final Cut Pro HD for the MAC and you know you can get pretty much any CG software for MAC.

 

A mac is not for highly specialized software. That is what an SGI is for. And Final Cut Pro is not specialized software, its a consumer editing program, and so is Premiere, and Avid Xpress. FCP is not something that a "Professional" should be using.

 

As for CG software, I don't know of any CG software that is made specifically for the Mac. And when I took a tour at ILM i didn't see any mac's.

 

I have never seen anyone using FCP at any Post house that I have been to, most places use the Avid Nitris, or they will use Discreet Fire, which runs on SGI's, or Quantel IQ's and EQ's.

 

What I don't like about a Mac is the limited amount of Hardware. Say I buy a Mac now, and a year or two from now, they come out with a new processor, and I want to switch to that processor, can I keep all my old hardware and just buy the processor? Or do I have to shell out another $5,000.00 for a whole new computer? With a PC I can just go out and buy a new processor, and if my old motherboard doesnt support it then I can go out and buy a new motherboard too and keep all my old components.

 

I paid about $1,000 for my computer, and if I suddenly needed to switch over to a dual processor machine, all I need to do is go out and buy a new motherboard and one more processor, which would only cost me another $800 or so.

[Tenolian Bell]

From my experience any foreign programs that try to execute that OSX isn't sure about I always get a flag asking for permission. For it to do anything I have to type in my administrator password. And I've been told that's one big reason a virus is hard to successfully exocute in OSX. I'm sure there is a flaw in there somewhere to be taken advantage, the question is how easy is it to take advantage of.

 

The security through obscurity theory has been often floated but I don't totally believe it. That can't possibly be the entire story. Even though you spread wider damage with a Windows virus, don't you think at this point hackers would want a new challenge?

 

Think about it logically. I'm sure there are several eager hackers out there hard at work to be the one who wrote the malicious code that attacked millions of Mac's. Just to be the one who did it. At this point Windows is just too easy a target.

 

I'm sure there are flaws to be exploited. I'm sure one day someone will effectively find one. But there is a vast difference between small hard to find defects and thousands that are easy to find.

[Landon D. Parks]

I think its wronge to state that "FCP is not something that a "Professional" should be using."

 

FCP HD is a very specialized program. In my opinion, comparing its feature's it beats such Prosumer programs like Premiere, vegas, ect.

 

I'm sure avid's professional systems are nice, if you have $150,000.00 to fork out for one.

 

And Your saying "And Final Cut Pro is not specialized software, its a consumer editing program,". I Dont know of to many people editing home movies on FCP HD.

 

They make programs like Windows Movie Maker and iMovie for that.

 

Apple has FCP listed as "Professional Software".

 

Im not trying to act like I know more than you guys here, only stating my opinion.

Edited January 28, 2005 by Landon D. Parks