You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Convince Me Why I Should Convert From Windows To Mac!

Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 11:00am

Post 1 of 44

callum_slade

Force: 279 | Joined: 22nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 150

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hi There,

Im currentley using windows xp but im looking to get an apple imac G5. I basically design quite a bit graphic wise and need it to be able to run my online business. What are the good points about mac and the bad points and at the end of the day is it worth selling up and converting?

Thanks,

Callum
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 11:47am

Post 2 of 44

BackOfTheHearse

Force: 2660 | Joined: 17th Nov 2001 | Posts: 1099

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Man, this is going to turn into another Mac VS PC war.

My questions for you are rather simple...

1. Are you happy with your Windows PC? If not, why?

2. Have you ever used a Mac extensively before, or are you like me? (I grew up exclusively on PC, and only really used Macs at friends' houses or at school).

3. Why, in your mind, do you think you should switch? What have you heard about Macs that makes you feel it would be better to switch over for what you're trying to accomplish?
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 11:50am

Post 3 of 44

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

From a graphics/video point for view...

Mac + points..
- Photoshop is faster and more reliable on the Mac (I use it daily on both systems).
- Final Cut Pro is fantastic.

PC + points..
- More programs to choose from.
- Macromedia apps (although still really buggy) are less buggy than on the Mac.

Thanks about all I can give you at the moment, really busy biggrin
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 12:49pm

Post 4 of 44

sk8street65

Force: 495 | Joined: 30th Mar 2005 | Posts: 172

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

Dude,, if you buy a mac,, i will totaly change your way of thinking about computers
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 1:46pm

Post 5 of 44

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

On macs, you don't have to worry about spending extra money to get rid of viruses and adware etc. Its pretty immune itself.
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 1:56pm

Post 6 of 44

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I own a Mac and PC.

I don't touch my PC if I have the choice. Even World of Warcraft I play on my Mac because it has never crashed and I can still navigate around OSX with it running.

Granted, all programs that you can get on the PC (the decent freeware ones) you cant get on Mac, but overtime this is definetely changing.

I prefer Mac, better for images, video and using. smile
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 2:18pm

Post 7 of 44

TommyB

Force: 190 | Joined: 25th Nov 2004 | Posts: 666

Member

Mac is about style.

PC is about power.
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 2:37pm

Post 8 of 44

PhLogan

Force: 490 | Joined: 1st May 2004 | Posts: 290

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

TommyB wrote:

Mac is about style.

PC is about power.
rolleyes Im not even Mac user, but I am still going to roll my eyes at that one. They are extremely powerful systems.

Why am I on PC then, you ask? Because in MY personal experience I have never had problems with lack of power or reliability on any of the PC's I've built and used for video editing/gaming. If it aint broke, why fix it?

I say if you are having problems with your PC and havent had much luck with PC's in the past, then go ahead and get a Mac. But if you are just upgrading for the sake of upgrading, then really think about all of your PC and Mac options.

What are your current PC specifications?
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 2:59pm

Post 9 of 44

yellowmello

Force: 120 | Joined: 7th May 2005 | Posts: 39

Member

hello all! Im on my 7th pc and I hate windows so much I think the next windows is going to suck so bad. The only two mac programs I have used is itunes and quicktime. When the next windows comes out I think im going to switch to a mac.
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 3:11pm

Post 10 of 44

pzgamer825

Force: 140 | Joined: 2nd Jan 2005 | Posts: 194

Windows User

Member

I'm not a Mac user, yet right now, here I am screaming,

STAY AWAY FROM WINDOWS AT ALL COSTS!



It is very expensive to keep safe, very buggy, frequently slow, and I honestly don't think that the number of programs makes up for it.

The next release of Virtual PC is going to have DirectX (I think... I heard that somewhere) so you will be able to run even more Windows stuff on Mac.


Mac is definitely the avenue to take.

Of course, you may also want to listen to Rooster Teeth's opinion. biggrin
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 3:36pm

Post 11 of 44

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

TommyB wrote:

Mac is about style.

PC is about power.
Hahahahahaha....

Macs are powerful, you must be comparing an eMac to a superpowerful PC machine. PLease, runa benchmark on your PC right now and I doubt you will even come close to surpassing the G5 I just linked to above.
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 4:00pm

Post 12 of 44

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I grew up on PCs, from the time i was seven to the time i was nine, and then, my family asked me to pick what computer we should by next. I picked Mac, because i was interested in filmmaking. I never knew nine year olds could make such good choices. We have 7 computers in my house, six being PCs. My three sisters happily IM on all of the PCs while i take command of the Mac, day and night, actually my current uptime is three months, and 6 hours. I would never go back to PCs even if someone paid me, trust me, once you convert, you will never regret it.
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 4:02pm

Post 13 of 44

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

You know what they say:

Once you go Mac, you never go back
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 4:20pm

Post 14 of 44

LilCaesars

Force: 480 | Joined: 27th Dec 2004 | Posts: 530

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I've got a pc now which I am pleased with, but what these guys are saying is right. Macs are the more powerful tool that you should be using. The reason I went with windows was because a powerful mac was out of my price range. That's the one thing i dislike about macs is you either get a crappy one or a nice one and the nice ones are quite expensive. When I go to college I am definately switching to a mac, but for now a windows is fine for me. If you are looking for a more professional to the point computer I say go for mac. My parents have one and I am envious they never have to do a spyware or virus scan. mad
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 5:30pm

Post 15 of 44

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

I've been a long term user of both systems, so allow me to start my post with the simple statement:

Ignore the majority of posts in this thread, as the majority of PC/Mac users are bound to say that whichever they use is better.

When looking at Operating systems, something much more important than style or power is : Which programs the System has, and how relevent they are to what you want to use a computer for.

So what exactly do you want to use your computer for, and are you aware of the fact that changing Operating system won't make you any better at what you do, it will only change the programs available for you to work with?
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 7:00pm

Post 16 of 44

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

For a long time I was a strict Windows user and despised Macs. Then I used someone's Mac to edit a video for them on, and I loved it to death, so I bought one. Then for a long time I hated Windows with a passion and didn't want to touch it.

Lately, since I use my Mac at home, and a PC at work, I'm fine with using both, as I think they both have their perks. The Mac has extreme ease of use and is powerful, and Windows is also very user friendly and powerful if you know what you're doing with it.

I believe that Macs are more helpful out of the box than Windows PC's, but once you customise your Windows PC, put the software you need on it, get rid of the stuff you don't need, start using firefox (wink) and various other third party goodies, you'll be good to go, and I don't think you'll have any trouble with crashing as long as you take care of it.

One of the reasons I got fed up with my Windows PC is because it would crash a lot. And by a lot I mean a couple times a week. Sometimes it would be fatal and I'd have to go get it fixed. For quite some time now, my Mac has been crashing a LOT. And by a lot I mean multiple times a day sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't crash at all, and it mostly only does it when I have a lot of programs running, which sort of testifies to it's relative age, but it does it.

Mac's are still computers, no matter what anyone tells you, and you should really go with what you're comfortable with, and like others have said, which software's you're used to will have a great impact on the decision.
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 7:08pm

Post 17 of 44

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Brettsta wrote:

On macs, you don't have to worry about spending extra money to get rid of viruses and adware etc. Its pretty immune itself.
That's a false statement. I don't spend any money, yet my PC is nicely secure. As a home user you can utilise free anti-virus, firewall and adware software. As long as you're sensible and keep things up-to-date, security shouldn't be a problem.

The majority of virus problems on PCs don't come from the machines being insecure, but from the users being astoundingly brainless. smile

As any wise poster will say, PCs and Macs both have their pros and cons. In the end it depends entirely on what you want it for. If you're going for video and image work, the Mac will probably be your best bet, but it will also cost you an arm and a leg. If you're looking for a more all-round solution, or if you're into games or 3D, then a PC is probably better.

Ideally I'd have both. smile
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 7:50pm

Post 18 of 44

TommyB

Force: 190 | Joined: 25th Nov 2004 | Posts: 666

Member

A lot of people get confused.

MACs are technically similar, but they are FAR more efficient that windows. WOW - The G5 has 2GB of ram! Well buy a PC with 2GB of ram and you'll notice one hell of a difference too.
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 8:17pm

Post 19 of 44

DPUMA8

Force: 230 | Joined: 1st Dec 2004 | Posts: 181

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

I was thinking about either getting a better PC or a Mac because I hear so many things about them. My roommate has a Mac and it is pretty nice. Apple's programs are great. (iMovie, Garage Band, Final Cut Pro).
I have 3 problems with it. The first is that many of the programs I use are made for PC and are not available for Mac. Second is the navigation. I have a hard time finding things on that computer. Thirdly, I can't stand the mouse. I need that right click but it isn't there.

I am also still deciding and I do realize that most of my complaints are because I am new to the Mac and used to a PC.

I am still wondering if anyone can tell me, why Macs are so popular with editing and computer graphics. I remember that there was a big thing about Captain Skyhawk because it was made on a Mac (I think).

Why is it so good? Can you upgrade a Mac like you can for a PC?

By the way, the Mac does crash as much as my PC
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 8:58pm

Post 20 of 44

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

TommyB wrote:

A lot of people get confused.
Evidently.
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 9:09pm

Post 21 of 44

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

DPUMA8 wrote:

Thirdly, I can't stand the mouse. I need that right click but it isn't there.
No ones stopping you from putting a mouse with a right click in smile
Posted: Sun, 15th May 2005, 9:55pm

Post 22 of 44

pzgamer825

Force: 140 | Joined: 2nd Jan 2005 | Posts: 194

Windows User

Member

I download tons of crap, have an open and unprotected broadband connection, yet I get no popups, no spyware, adware, virii, etc.

In my opinion, keeping a clean computer is more about being smart about what you do with your internet than having proper software. If you are able to filter out spam, know good sites from the bad, know trustable downloads from untrustable, you can keep a good connection.

The only software I have that protect my computer are Firefox (no IE allowed here) and Ad-Aware, which I only run once every two months.

So saying that Mac is more secure is misleading. A more appropriate statement would be that more virii are written for PC because it is more widely used, therefore it is affected more. However having a UNIX base does help it out. biggrin

And, as always, Google is your friend.

And it found this. The bottom there has some advice from industry pros and a lot of other stuff.

pzgamer825
Posted: Mon, 16th May 2005, 1:41am

Post 23 of 44

PhLogan

Force: 490 | Joined: 1st May 2004 | Posts: 290

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Ive also read that ALOT of what contributes to PCs being more vulnerable to spyware and viruses is because PCs outnumber Macs by so much. If you are a hacker you are going to want to go for the biggest population you can hit, which in current is PCs. Macs aren't protected any furthur than PCs, they just are the miniority and have less attacks on them.

Again, that is something I read on the internet, which we all know is full of biased opinions and lies.
Posted: Mon, 16th May 2005, 1:13pm

Post 24 of 44

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

I wasn't going to reply to this originally, but oh well. This will be brief and after I post, no more replies from me. razz

Macs are more secure than PCs in the sense that users are forced to run in limited/restricted mode. If a virus/spyware happens to come on to a Mac, it can't do anything because the account it's infected is restricted.

On the other hand, a good number of PC users LOVE to run as an administrator and in most cases are forced to because developers LOVE to develop Applications that need administrator access. Because a good percentage of PC users run as Admin, viruses and spyware that happen to infect the user are free to do as they please on the system.

So while there are less possible infections on the Mac side, most of these infections are incapable of doing much on the Mac. On a PC, due to most people running as admin, PC users tend to get infected easily. However, this will change soon. wink

If you want your PC to be as secure as a Mac, run as a limited user and only run as Administrator when you absolutely need to. (You can hold shift and right click on a program and click the "runas" button to do this)

</EndRant>

DigiSm89
Posted: Tue, 17th May 2005, 1:05am

Post 25 of 44

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

DigiSm89 wrote:

If you want your PC to be as secure as a Mac, run as a limited user and only run as Administrator when you absolutely need to. (You can hold shift and right click on a program and click the "runas" button to do this)
Or just keep up to date with automatic updates and run a decent antivirus program (http://www.grisoft.com). The vast majority of virus problems on a PC are down to it's user being a plank and not protecting their computer.
Posted: Tue, 17th May 2005, 1:10am

Post 26 of 44

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

DigiSm89 wrote:

Macs are more secure than PCs in the sense that users are forced to run in limited/restricted mode.
False. You don't need to run in a limited mode. There is the Root user, enableable through the Netinfo manager in the Utillities folder. Most of us just run on the limited account because 1)We don't know HOW to enable the Root user, nevermind the risk of it, or 2)The ones who do know the risks and how do get in don't want to take the risks. In the root user anything goes. Yes, anything. Wanna delete the Finder? Ok. It doesn't even give you a second chance. So mac users, beware the root....

*Timmy's voice trails off
Posted: Tue, 17th May 2005, 3:11pm

Post 27 of 44

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

For a long time I was a strict Windows user and despised Macs. Then I used someone's Mac to edit a video for them on...
I did the same thing. I had to produce a video yearbook for my school...

The biggest detriment to our progress were the computers. See, on my Dell at home, I had a grand total of around 200 MB of free space on my hard disk, and all of my programs ran just fine. However, given 4+ GB on the Mac, and sometimes you could double-click the FinalCut Pro icon, and somehow the application would "unexpectedly quit" before the interface even loaded.

To speak of reliability...

DigiSm89 wrote:

Macs are more secure than PCs in the sense that users are forced to run in limited/restricted mode.
My PC is extremely secure... because I can configure it to my exact specifications. No one can bypass the login of Windows via external data device, because I have configured it so that no data can be streamed off of any external drives or removeable media except by the locally logged on user. Guest accounts are disabled, I have a BIOS password and a system password.

I also have the Windows firewall up and running, and, according to both freeware applications Spyboth: Search and Destroy as well as Microsoft AntiSpyware Beta, my computer is completely adware and spyware free.

Macs have 8x Superdrives, while PC's push 16x. I might add, I purchased my 16x DVD +/- R/RW drive for $75, and installed it myself, whilst Apple charges about $200.

Apples are ludicrously expensive, and, once purchased, you are locked into them, with no hope of upgrading whatsoever. PC's, meanwhile, are adaptable and upgradeable. My very own PC is undergoing a mammoth rebuild that will probably be complete by the end of this year. Upgrades include added RAM, 500gb of RAIDed SATA hard drive space, a new video card and mayhaps a new 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 as illustrated here.

TommyB wrote:

A lot of people get confused.
And yet, Mac OS X is irresponsibly touted to be the most user friendly operating system to ever grace the visage of humanity. The "Start" button is infinitely more user friendly than "Finder."

It's all Apple's marketing, if there's three things I will give credit to Apple for, it is that somehow they manage to take technology someone invented 10 years ago, make it silver and shiny, re-market it and people buy it. With Mac OS X, they take something 40 years old (Unix) and make it shiny, reaping all kinds of glory by saying OS X is based on a Unix core.

Then there's this Tiger rhapsody... "Oh, gee. I'm Steve Jobs, and I'm at a total loss of what to put in this new OS. Do I even need to market a new one? No... not really. But let's do it anyways, add a whole bunch of ultimately useless gadgets that depend on an internet connection, make them shiny and market it. Woot!"

I might add, Windows machines don't get finicky when hard drive space is at 4 gigs. My PC hasn't been formatted since I got it a year ago, and it has "crashed" once. When I say crashed, I mean, it just kind of stopped working, and so I hit the button and held it down for 5 seconds... and then my computer restarted and it was just fine. I also don't worry about my PC anymore... as Windows allows me to schedule when virus checks and spyware checks will run.

A little user know-how can make a helluva lot of difference.

TommyB wrote:

Well buy a PC with 2GB of ram and you'll notice one hell of a difference too
You do notice a difference, speaking as a person with a PC with 2 GB of RAM.

TommyB wrote:

WOW - The G5 has 2GB of ram!
No, it has 512mb. To get 2 GB of RAM in it, you pay between $350 to $450 for it.

You know what I really notice a difference in? I'm paying $180 for my Corsair RAM for my PC. Yes, that's right, 2gb of DDR400 RAM... as opposed to $450. I will be adding two 250gb SATA hard drives in RAID 0 setup, which will cost me an overestimated $300.

My PC has cost me $1074, for dual monitors and everything in it. The only Macs that perform in competition with mine are incarnations of the G5, as the G4 was the worst processor ever. The bottom line G5 costs $1,499.

...and still isn't upgradeable. Have fun.
Posted: Wed, 18th May 2005, 12:32am

Post 28 of 44

Steeb

Force: 1650 | Joined: 14th Nov 2004 | Posts: 217

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

You guys have it all wrong... Macs, PCs, they're sooooo last year. If you want power, and I mean unstoppable, lightning-fast, super-efficient processing, you must go with Tandy TRS-80 Color Computer II. We're talking UP TO 64K of RAM! We're talking detachable 5.25" floppy & tape drive support! G5, schmee five. Pentium 4, schmentium 4.

Accept no substitutes.


surprised
Posted: Wed, 18th May 2005, 3:18am

Post 29 of 44

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

razz Nice. biggrin
Posted: Wed, 18th May 2005, 3:44am

Post 30 of 44

BlueSmudge

Force: 808 | Joined: 30th Dec 2004 | Posts: 401

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Before I start off I would like to say I have been using PC's for 8 yeras, and macs for 7. I own 2 PC's and one Mac.

A Pickle. Your wrong in very many places.
I own 2 year old emac with a 1Ghz with 1 Gig of ram, and as far as basic applications go. Runs faster than my friends Dell XPS with 3.4 GHZ, 2 Gigs of Ram, and 4x the video ram on a much better card.
My Mac cost me a little over $1000 and his cost almost $3000.
Sure his can beast on me in the games, but even in video editing the difference can hardly be seen.

Another thing. Apple invented the graphics based operating system, the file bar, and the use of a mouse.

Besides the processors, ALL macs are upgradable. And you can upgrade the processor of any older mac tower. I'm sure the same will be for the G5 once its out of date.
The ignorance of most people is that they think they have to do everything through apple who often doubles the price of things.
You can buy ram, HD's, video cards, and processors from 3rd party dealers that work absolutely fine in macs that often out perform what apple has to offer.

As far as the operating system. EASIEST THING EVER. Sure its not quite as simple as OS9 but apples werent really as great until X.
Basically, you have your Applications folder, your Desktop, and everything else is up to you. Your mac comes with almost no folders that you have to worry about. Unlike my PC which comes with tones of never ending folders. Especially under the control panel.
Macs are far more simple than PC's right away, and can become just as complicated and custimizable as PC's if you want. You even can have a two button mouse (o wow!).
Posted: Wed, 18th May 2005, 3:55am

Post 31 of 44

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

A Pickle, I agree, Macs are expensive, we hear you. But is that ALL you can argue? IMO it is worth it in the end, and I love my Mac. And they CAN be upgraded buddy. But no need to type 4 paragraphs about how much more expensive Macs are in different places because that isn't debating the computer itself. Especially when you can just say: Macs are overpriced. If you have the money, I think you should go Mac, you will love it once you get it, hands down. I was iffy about getting a Mac for the first time, but that is what got me into all this movie stuff: Macs. Windows is pretty good, but they just get annoying and the OS isn't all that great out of the box, you have to do so much to it to make it desirable. For example, I turn on my Mom's laptop, I get 3 windows telling me this is wrong, this is missing, my printer is there, etc. Now, I am sure these error things can be turned off somehow, but my Mom doesn't know how to do that, this makes Macs much more user-friendly to people who are just starting computing. These are my reasons. Don't eat me PC people. smile
Posted: Wed, 18th May 2005, 8:33am

Post 32 of 44

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Trouble is, I love my PC. To further complicate your theory, my use of Macs has, if anything, pushed me further away from ever converting.

Once you go Mac, you never go back
Hah, there's a good one. What about Macs = Scam?

Performance:
BlueSmudge, I'm afraid your friend had either a faulty processor or his computer is loaded with spyware and adware up the wazzoo. Video editing and encoding are where Pentiums are king. Even mature AMD fans admit this, and, apologies, but a 1.0 GHz G4 is no match for a 3.4 GHz Pentium.

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm

Each of those benchmarks pits a single processor Pentium powered Dell against a dual G4 powered Mac. The Pentium takes the cake hands down, and this was done before the 3.4 Northwoods had come out. A 2.53 GHz Pentium wins against a dual 800MHz Mac.

http://www.surrealization.com/viewpost-589.aspx

In the above benchmark a single Athlon trounces a dual processor G5 system, though due to it's uncertainty of credibility, we'll use the below link:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=31238-1

Admittedly, the G5 holds it's ground just slightly better than did it's dismal brethren... yet the PC's still come out on top, bang for the buck included.

Innovation:
And I thank Apple for the GUI and the mouse, but was that it? As far as overall progress goes, the PC world is thundering away from Apple with the releases of dual and multicore CPU chips with embedded wireless, 64-bit computing, HyperThreading, Hyper Transport and Scalable Link Interface to name a few of the emerging technologies Apple still has a long ways to go before they get that support.

USB 2.0 runs 80 mbps faster than Firewire, at 480 mbps.

Intel has released processors for HANDHELDS that already outdo some older PC's. Opterons and Xeons are the choice processors in the workstation and server world, not G5's.

Stability:
As I type this, my C: drive has 2.9 GB of free space available, and is running just fine. This is a sharp contrast to the Apple's I have had the unfortunate pleasure of working with to produce a video yearbook. At around 9 GB of free space, applications will start to cut out "unexpectedly," and at around 5 gb of space, working without saving VERY often is a total impossibility.

Apples should be thankful the annoying "1337 h4x0rz" of the PC world don't attack them with their viruses and malware, as Apple's seem to have trouble enough with their own hardware.

Operating System:
A matter of preference, really, but OS X seems to run unhappily on minimal hard drive space, or at least contributes to that filing bug.

I like XP, my printer installation was harmless. My VGA adapter was installed harmlessly. My 40 GB hard drive was installed easily. As I said, I've configured Windows to be as secure as is humanly possible from net attacks to aforementioned "1337 h4x0rz" trying to locally hack.

I've got Windows Scheduler on my side, my Microsoft AntiSpyware Beta runs automatically and updates itself, my Symantec AntiVirus Client runs automatically and runs LiveUpdate automatically, Windows updates itself, Norton SystemWorks will automatically defrag my disks, and Spybot: Search and Destroy automatically scans and updates.

Idly, 0-3% of my CPU is ever used. None of these background programs soak up enough CPU to stick in your ear. At most, I use 509 MB of my available 1024 MB of RAM, though, when I took out a stick of 512, XP automatically compensated for the memory change.

Finally, there's something about taking care of my PC that I honestly like. I don't say this as an arguement, but I pride myself of having made my machine run fast and stable despite the literally millions of obstacles out there. I'm sorry, but I recommend PC's, particularly Dells to everyone I know.

Upgradeability:
So far as I am aware, the mainboard and CPU's of Macs are non-upgradeable. Not to discredit the fact that you can upgrade hard drives, or RAM, maybe video card, but not much else, and even those are difficult to do. What hard drives are supported on your motherboard?

What if you want a fast Mac, but you don't want to spend the money for dual processors? Why can't I buy a single processor Mac with the G5 at 2.7 GHz?

Can you go with a standard ATA hard drive? Or are you locked into those ridiculously expensive SCSI drives? Or is is SATA that the Mac uses? Can you go RAID? Will your mainboard support cas latencies of 2.5 or below? Will your mainboard support DDR400? Is it dual channel? Will it support DDR2? Will it support higher DDR frequencies? Is the power supply ATX compatible? What are the voltages?

Ahem. Sorry, but those are a number of things you have to check on ALL computers, not just PC's, when upgrading in those areas. I was able to instantly through Dell.

I don't believe Macs are terrible machines, indeed, Mac does do some things damn well. People don't make expenditures of that sort and get crap. Apple's are pretty good. I just happen to have personal opinion that PC's are better, and that's just what it is. Personal opinion based on the facts presented above. Nevertheless, I credit Apple on three primary things:

1.) That "Flurry" screensaver is waaay better than anything Windows has to offer... so that's why I got a recompiled version of it for my machine. biggrin

2.) The G5 is not the G4, and it is a very good processor.

3.) Apple = Marketing Genius
Posted: Wed, 18th May 2005, 10:24am

Post 33 of 44

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

A Pickle is right about the comparison between a 1.0GHz G4 and a 3.4GHz P4 but it appears to be just about the only thing he is right about. Amazingly the Intel is much faster, but thats hardly surprising as the chip is way newer. The G4 was up against P3 systems, not meant to take on the P4. Comparing one of the best Intel has to offer against a 4 year old PowerPC seems rather pointless. The G5 has been out like 2 years now and even the iMac has a G5 processor.

Video encoding isn't where the P4 is king, its where the G5 is king. My dual 2GHz G5 has destroyed any single/dual processor PC I've used so far, and there are G5s which are a lot faster than mine now.

The margin is only going to get larger with IBM owning most of the technology which is making processors faster at the moment, double and triple core PowerPCs are round the corner (in dual and maybe quad processor Macs) and cell technology is coming in the future as well (again a IBM owed technology with Sony and Toshiba). AMD are lucky to be an IBM partner but I can't really see what Intel are going to do...

OpenGL and game performance on the G5 isn't what it should be, something Apple, ATI and Nvidia are working on together at the moment having recently hired a lot of people to work on this project.

Going by stats you can prove just about anything. For instance the 1100 x Dual G5 2.3GHz (2200 CPUs) Xserve cluster is 7th fastest computer in the world. The fastest intel system is 10th and has 2500 x P4 Xeon 3.06 GHz yet is 25% slower than the Mac cluster. The next intel based cluster (2048 x Xeon 3.4 GHz) is only just over 1/2 as fast as the Xserve cluster. Looking at pure precessor power you can easily prove the G5 destroys Intel processors.

I don't like statistics really, I like to compare what a well setup Mac feels like compared to a Windows PC. If I compare the applications and tasks I do on PCs and Macs its only Macromedia applications which perform better on the PC. Photoshop is easily 3-4 times faster on the G5 than it is on my Athlon 2600+ and its more stable. Editing and encoding has about the same speed advantage as does 3D rendering.

the PC world is thundering away from Apple with the releases of dual and multicore CPU chips with embedded wireless, 64-bit computing
Ok, this is about as wrong as you can get. Apple have had dual processors machines in there line up for over 5 years now - they are far more standard in the Mac world than the PC world. Try buying a dual processor PC from PCWorld. The G5 was also the first mass produced desktop 64-bit processor - where most PC processors are still 32-bit most Mac processors are 64-bit. Apple also introduced wireless as a build to order option before any major PC maker. While the P4 does offer a fairly limited second core to its processor, the next G5s are said to offer 2-3 full cores - and IBM is also making the cell processor. You seem to be talking about something you have very little clue about A Pickle - sorry.

To continue the trend... USB2.0 also isn't as fast as Firewire 400, let alone Firewire 800. Firewire 400 doesn't have the burst rate of USB 2 (yeah, its 80mps down on that), but it can sustain a much much higher transder rate hence it better for external hard disks and professional video work. Firewire 800 (again created by Apple) has a much higher burst rate AND sustained rates than USB2.0.

True, people do pick Intel processors for Windows based servers, but many people are moving towards Xserve for none Windows based servers but they are still expensive.

this is a sharp contrast to the Apple's I have had the unfortunate pleasure of working with to produce a video yearbook. At around 9 GB of free space, applications will start to cut out "unexpectedly," and at around 5 gb of space, working without saving VERY often is a total impossibility.
Using any "public" computer which is used by many random people is cause for problems. The PCs at my college used to hardly work at all. Also the PCs and Macs of friends are often unstable because they have no idea what they are doing. My Macs and PCs are stable. But I would have to say that on the whole my PCs are not as stable as my Macs - but then they have a lot more rubbish to put up with.

Not to discredit the fact that you can upgrade hard drives, or RAM, maybe video card, but not much else, and even those are difficult to do.
Oh dear, this just proves you are a PC owner with no idea about Macs. All the things you are talking about upgrading here are easier on the Mac than just about any PC. Apple cases are well known for being the best in the industry, make swapping hardware really really simple, with no screws to worry about. You normally don't even have to worry about installing any drivers for stuff you plugin as well. Sure the processor is harder/more expensive to upgrade but there are options you can take. Its often cheaper to just sell your machines (as Macs retain tons more value than PCs) and get a new machine.

Macs use SATA drives and haven't used SCSI for about 4-5 years. RAID is standard in the OS (and the hardware of higher end machines). All G5s use DDR400 dual channel. DDR2 will be coming to the next G5s. You have no trouble upgrading Macs at all.

Personal opinion based on the facts presented above.
Its only good to say that if you actually have the correct facts and more importantly experience. I've owed over 20 Macs, probably about half as many PCs but I've maintained many more than that. Macs are not better than PCs, they are different. But many of the "facts" you have given against Macs are simple wrong and show a lack of understanding. Just wanted to put things straight.
Posted: Wed, 18th May 2005, 4:23pm

Post 34 of 44

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

To upgrade my Ram on my iMac i unscrewed the bottom plate and snapped the card into the slot on the top... After that I had to ice my knee and take some advil.
Posted: Wed, 18th May 2005, 9:14pm

Post 35 of 44

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Schwar wrote:

Video encoding isn't where the P4 is king, its where the G5 is king.
Well... the benchmark conducted by a venerated and credible video editing website seems to say otherwise. That's not to say I think that the G5 is slow, by all means, it is a vast improvement over the dismally performing G4.

Schwar wrote:

The fastest intel system is 10th and has 2500 x P4 Xeon 3.06 GHz yet is 25% slower than the Mac cluster.
The fastest Intel system is 5th in the world, with 4096 Intel Itanium 2 processors.

Schwar wrote:

Apple have had dual processors machines in there line up for over 5 years now - they are far more standard in the Mac world than the PC world.
I can sympathize with the statement that they are far more standard in the IBM world than in the PC world, but Apple has not yet incorporated any multicored processors in their computers.

Intel has released the Pentium 4 840 Extreme Edition, a single processor that has four computing threads. Among it's more budget priced dual core processor designs, the Pentium D's are emerging. All of these support 64-bit processing technology. You can actually buy both Intel and AMD dual core processors, and both chipmakers have plans for multicore designs for market in the future.

While IBM was the first to build a dual core processor (the Power4 in 2001), they were not the first to market the technology to the computer buying-masses, and now, four years later, they still have no dual core processors for market distribution beyond the server and supercomputing arena.

Schwar wrote:

True, people do pick Intel processors for Windows based servers, but many people are moving towards Xserve for none Windows based servers but they are still expensive.
Generally speaking, AMD Opterons outperform Xeons in terms of server tasks. Regardless, the Xeons are pushing 8 MB of cache now, Itanium 2's are pushing 24 MB, and the Opteron 875's with dual core

Schwar wrote:

Using any "public" computer which is used by many random people is cause for problems. The PCs at my college used to hardly work at all. Also the PCs and Macs of friends are often unstable because they have no idea what they are doing.
The Macs here, so far as I can tell, are clean. They have a bunch of video files, a bunch of picture files, iMovie and FinalCut Pro 3. As I've said, they run great... until you start closing in on the end of the hard drive. Then, you can doubleclick on an application, and before the GUI even loads I get the error message saying that "The application 'FinalCut Pro 3' has unexpectedly quit."

Both Macs did this, and for the duration of the year, both were without internet, and then when we got internet, only one of them got connected to it.

In addition, a friend of mine had a PowerBook that he had purchased for the purpose of video editing. When it is turned on, about 50% of the time it will boot up, the other 50% of the time, it doesn't even get into OS X. Beyond that, he purchased an external hard drive to avoid that very same hard drive problem.

When I was in middle school, our school had the first of the iMacs. Whenever a computer had a problem, the first thing to be checked was always hard drive space.

Schwar wrote:

But many of the "facts" you have given against Macs are simple wrong and show a lack of understanding.
I'm forced to disagree. When I'm exposed to a computer, I can determine whether or not it's something I would want to use or not. First impressions are also important, and I've dealt with Macs since I began school. I really didn't mind them at all, and the PC vs. Mac debate was the last thing on my mind.

Now, however, computing is a topic of interest to me, and I find it statistically hard to believe that the three modern Macs I have been exposed to are simply maintained improperly. Right now, I'm typing on a school maintained 800 MHz Dell Optiplex with 128 MB of RAM. Were I to make a choice, I would without doubt choose the Dell I'm on right now.

Schwar wrote:

But I would have to say that on the whole my PCs are not as stable as my Macs - but then they have a lot more rubbish to put up with.
That they do. Darn those "1337 h4x0rz." Mine is pretty stable... but it took me a few months of trial and error for me to get "educated" on the subject of PC maintenance. Now, I'm really proud of my computer's stability and reliability. My Dell is a wonderful computing experience.

In my opinion, though, it's all on preference. As I said, I just... don't like OS X too much. I know Windows and it's a very stable OS, a pleasure to work with, and it's easy to get it to where you like.

OS X isn't my preference, but, then, a million people out there would go with nothing else, and I'm pretty sure they're not lying for the mild sake of debate.

That's my probably overwritten $.02
Posted: Wed, 25th May 2005, 11:29am

Post 36 of 44

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Firslty, why do you need convincing ? if you need convincing then you dont need to make the swtich coz you are obviously happy with what you have.

As is always the case with any of these threads the myths about both systems get rolled out by the respective supporters. In the end try out a mac and see what you think. I am persoanlly a PC person and most likely always will be. I see few if any advantages to spending the overly high price you need to pay to get a Mac of decent spec. A friend of mine likes Macs and he told me about getting a Dual 2ghz G5 Powermac for £1400, great i thought, till you add on the price of a decent monitor and realise to increase the memory to a decent level and still keep it in this price you have to remove the "superdrive" DVD-RW drive to us PC people. Macs sadly while good, just dont give value for money. I've also seen benchmarks putting a high end single P4 machine above a dual G5 mac in the areas that a Mac is supposedly King at. It's mainly because the Mac still doesn't support the fastest memory available and PC's do. No doubt the next gen PowerMac will have the faster memory but still. For the price you'd expect more. I keep thinking, I'll get a Mac to try out along side my PC so recently I've been doing research into it and my conclusion. They just aren't worth the money. For £1400 I can get a faster PC WITH a monitor, better graphics and sound, more memory, hard drive and still keep the DVD-RW dual format dual layer drive. It's simple economics. The only down side I can see to PC's compared with a Mac is that Mac's are built by one company so there are no dodgy cheapies out there full of rubbish components causing crashes that the ill informed blame on windows. Of course this too has a downside.....the prices are fixed artifically high and the machines are sold on hype and myth. Style over substance comes to mind when you look at the real world application test going around at the moment.
Posted: Wed, 25th May 2005, 5:31pm

Post 37 of 44

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Keep in mind, A Pickle, that Schwar maintains that the PS2 is more powerful than the Xbox. razz
Posted: Thu, 26th May 2005, 7:56am

Post 38 of 44

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Schwar, Intel also have dual core processors and Two of us at least on here have seen tests with premiere that show a single....single core P4 kisk the ass of a dual processor G5. It's not just about Dual core and 64 bits it's about the surrounding architechture, something that with the right motherboard PC's are currently ahead on. Thats where PC will always score, a MAC is made by one company with one set of components. Sure true reliablility wise thats an advantage and the real reason why Mac's tend to be a little more crash resistant (though not so true of the first release of Tiger so I've read) but that also restricts it. PC's are far more agile when it comes to performance improvements. In the end though it comes down to which you prefer. These days no matter what Mac users say to protect their myth of superiority there's really nothing to shoose between them anymore, both have pluses and minuses but no matter what Apple marketing says it really doesn't matter which you have if you look after it properly
Posted: Thu, 26th May 2005, 8:32am

Post 39 of 44

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Well... the benchmark conducted by a venerated and credible video editing website seems to say otherwise. That's not to say I think that the G5 is slow, by all means, it is a vast improvement over the dismally performing G4.
You can also point out other software and stats which show the G5 is much faster. My statements come from experience, not random biased magazines. Before I got my G5, my Athlon 2600+ toasted my G4s (some stats said it wouldn't). Once I got my dual G5 I'm yet to try a machine which can out perform it for DVD and mpeg4 class encoding - still a 30% margin on everything I've tried.

The fastest Intel system is 5th in the world, with 4096 Intel Itanium 2 processors.
You hardly helped your point by showing the 4096 x Itanium 2 processors is only about 35-40% faster than 2200 x G5s (1100 Xserves) - therefore by the stats the G5s are quite a bit faster. The G5 is against the P4 remember, not the Itanium. The first P4 based system is even slower still.

I can sympathize with the statement that they are far more standard in the IBM world than in the PC world, but Apple has not yet incorporated any multicored processors in their computers. While IBM was the first to build a dual core processor (the Power4 in 2001), they were not the first to market the technology to the computer buying-masses, and now, four years later, they still have no dual core processors for market distribution beyond the server and supercomputing arena.
My statement was about multiprocessor, not multicore. I find it hard to see why you guys are so worried about how many cores your processors have when it comes to using it as an arguement for why the P4 is better. The second core on the P4 isn't a full core. The second core of the P4 doesn't increase the speed of the processor by anywhere near the margin which dual processors do so I'm not sure why you see the lack of dual core G5 as a problem.

If you want to talk about multicore designs in the future just look at the IBM processors in the the Xbox360 (3 core G5) and the PS3 (cell processor). AMDs multicore technology is licenced from IBM as far as I am aware as they are partnered with IBM.

Generally speaking, AMD Opterons outperform Xeons in terms of server tasks. Regardless, the Xeons are pushing 8 MB of cache now, Itanium 2's are pushing 24 MB, and the Opteron 875's with dual core.
I never said what was fastest, I said the generally people pick Intel processors for servers. Seems again like you are making a rather random point.

The Macs here, so far as I can tell, are clean. They have a bunch of video files, a bunch of picture files, iMovie and FinalCut Pro 3. As I've said, they run great... until you start closing in on the end of the hard drive. Then, you can doubleclick on an application, and before the GUI even loads I get the error message saying that "The application 'FinalCut Pro 3' has unexpectedly quit."
That error message shows there is something wrong with the machine or the install of that software. Almost every public PC i've used has been screwed up in one way or another - I would expect just the same to be true of Macs, if not more so as many school IT people don't know Macs. I can give you hundreds of Mac and PC stories from friends when the machines don't work right - they hardly help here as they are all down to user error. Also I think you'll find any machine with low disk space doesn't perform well - I've had the same amount of problems with this on PCs as I ever have on Macs.

Now, however, computing is a topic of interest to me, and I find it statistically hard to believe that the three modern Macs I have been exposed to are simply maintained improperly. Right now, I'm typing on a school maintained 800 MHz Dell Optiplex with 128 MB of RAM. Were I to make a choice, I would without doubt choose the Dell I'm on right now.
School IT people hardly ever know how to maintain Macs so its more than possible that they would all be in a terrible state. At one of my schools we had an IT guy who only knew Macs, none of the PCs worked for more than the first week of the school term. Other places its been the same with the Macs.

Keep in mind, A Pickle, that Schwar maintains that the PS2 is more powerful than the Xbox.
By the way, I've only ever said the PS2 has a faster CPU than the Xbox, not a faster GPU. The GPU is quite a bit faster on the Xbox, but if the PS2 is well programmed it actually has more CPU power.
Posted: Thu, 26th May 2005, 8:48am

Post 40 of 44

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

why is it whenever a Mac is shown to be slower than a PC the reviewer is biased ? The benchmarks were on the web on a site that does stuff for both PC and Mac. In certain things the Dual Processor 64 bit Mac was faster in certain things the single processor 32 bit PC was faster. The strange thing about it was the areas where the Mac traditionally shines it was outdone by a PC with a single 32 bit processor. Figures dont lie, it's not about bias it's about the surrounding architecture. You might have two 64 bit processors but so what if the memory thoughput is slower and the overall clock speed is also slower. Thats what currently Chokes the G5. I was condsidering very strongly getting a dual G5 so I'm not baised, but sadly a 2.7 is out of my range. I could get a 2.0 but having seen these figures i'm not sure i see the point, for £1400 i can get a better equipped PC complete with 19 inch TFT screen and as I have a laptop right now I don't have a screen spare to use with the Mac. I would love to try final cut pro and the like see what all the hype is about.....but it needs 1GB memory so thats more expense where as the PC already would have 1GB.

With the added expense of getting new Mac versions of programs including effectslab and Chromanator......to my mind it's just not worth the money. I do really wish that apple would drop this elitist pricing policy. it would lead to so many more sales....but for now....it's PC for me all the way till i get real value for money from Apple
Posted: Thu, 26th May 2005, 8:52am

Post 41 of 44

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

why is it whenever a Mac is shown to be slower than a PC the reviewer is biased ?
When did I say that - didn't I show the that my PC was faster than my old Mac when stats said it wasn't? It might be best to read what I wrote before you reply. I said they are easily biased both ways. You can find stats showing either is faster (by HUGE margins). Because of this I only rate experience and as I have hundreds of hours using G5s and P4/Athlon based PCs on multiple video tasks I'll take my own experience over any online stats.
Posted: Thu, 26th May 2005, 8:58am

Post 42 of 44

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Who really cares, no honestly...

It's already been decided that both platforms have their benefits and shortcomings and that you should choose one solely on how you intend to use a computer, and which platform performs this function the best.

Hardware specs, cpu inch measurements, pixels per ego and this general ego fuelled corporate fluffing isn't a part of this discussion whatsoever, infact it's way beyond me as to how or why this topic has descended into such a deep, dark and forbidden cavity of forum topics. How useful is all this information going to be to the origional poster who obviously has little/no idea of the whole mac/pc situation, when I... An experienced Mac and PC user am having difficulty interpreting it.

Granted when someone says something about a system you use, you want to correct it. But in this case, you're dragging the thread way, way off topic. I'd advise visiting a specific mac vs pc forum and argue it away there to your hearts content, as nothing will change the facts;

1) The system you use should be decided by how you intend to use it, and not the hardware bs.
2) The age old pc vs mac debate (in all shapes and forms) has been argued many a time before here, and I don't seriously believe anyone cares anymore.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Thu, 26th May 2005, 9:04am

Post 43 of 44

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Indeed...

You can not be convinced to change systems by a bunch of random biased people. People often only know about the system they use - not many people on here own both machines and use them all the time. I use both, I love them both - wouldn't want to pick one over the other - luckily I don't have to.

Good luck biggrin
Posted: Thu, 26th May 2005, 9:05am

Post 44 of 44

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

schwar wrote:

Not many people on here own both machines and use them all the time. I use both, I love them both - wouldn't want to pick one over the other - luckily I don't have to.
I agree completely, even despite having a preference to ones operating system I would be extremely hard pressed before being able to choose between them as they both have qualities I see as absolutely necessary smile.