I Have a very big problem....why is it that nearly all digital imaging proffesionals use macs rather than pcs? is there any clear advantage? because in a pc you can buy much more processing power for the same price and they are generally easier and more upgradable to use. I will be starting a digital imaging business and i will have 2 grand to spend on a PC and i will be spending 15 grand on a superb printer and i want the right machine. Surely pcs are better overall or are they just as good? does mac have a clear advantage in this field......I REALLY NEED AN ANSWER......this money is burning a hole in my pocket.......please answer me...no one else can thanks

-- CHRIS TABISZ (SEIZURE@TALK21.com), June 18, 2000

Answers

THe MAC wins on colour management. As far as processing power is concerned, I think the MAC G4 is way ahead You should also look closely at printers. It seems that with the archival inks available from epson now, I would look very closely at inkjet technology over anything else. What are you planning to use for a scanner? Check out this site www.luminouslandscape.com before you get too carried away.

-- Jonathan Ratzlaff (jonathanr@clrtech.bc.ca), June 18, 2000.

Chris, I work across Mac and PC platforms everyday and I much prefer the PC. There was a point where the MACs were better at color management, but I think those days are behind us, and the PCs are right up there with the Apple machines. I work on 4 MACs and 4 PCs and I find the PCs to be much more user friendly. If you only have $2k to spend on a computer for digital imaging then you are in trouble coming out of the gate. I assume your're using (or will be using) Photoshop. If that is the case then the most important thing you can add to your computer is RAM. 128megs is bare minimum and I would double or triple that if at all possible. I should be getting a new G4 in a week or two and the minimum ram I will run on it is 512megs. What type printer are you spending $15k on? I would recommend that you re-think your output device.

Fred Deaton

Imaging Services

NASA

Marshall Space Flight Center

fred.deaton@msfc.nasa.gov

-- fred (fdeaton@hiwaay.net), June 18, 2000.

This is the "opening a big can of worms" topic for sure , but here it goes. I honestly prefer using Windows NT based machines for imaging as Photoshop has its own color management engine and that takes away the Mac advantage. Programs like Draw 9 and quark also can use color management so the PC platform has indeed "caught up" in terms of versatility. I have to say I use and have sold Macs for almost 2 years now and see no reason to switch. They are more crash prone that a well built PC. They dont have the stability of Windows NT/2000, thats the truth. My uncle uses 2 G4 500's and complains about them being crash happy and my experience teaches me the same. If you go to the Adobe forums you'll see many Mac owners having problems as with PC owners, its just not the bulletproof platform its marketed as. Also , Apple releases new OS's every 5 months for $100 a pop, Apple is just as bad as Microsoft as gouging its clients, if not worse. I acutally had many customers wanting to buy new Macs with OS 8.6 intstead of 9.0, reloading an older OS on a new machine. As far as speed, a NT machine with lots of RAM is easily as fast as the G4, I use a PIII 800, 768MB, 2 UltraSCSI barracudas, Matrox G400 32MB, ATI 16MB(second display adapter), Adaptec 2906, Western Digital Firewire card, Polariod 4000, Epson 1600 Pro firewire, Zip, Syquest... Blah.. and its way faster than the G4 450 I use at work, no doubt about it. Now, to Apple's credit, if you starting in graphics and want to get up to speed quickly, buy a Mac. Like you have seen, many graphics pro's use them and it should be easy to get guidance and help. The process of buying a Mac is easier that a PC. A Mac is a Mac, a PC can be great or a bomb. You have to build a custom PC or buy something like a Silicon Graphics box in order to crank. The only reason my machine works so well is that the parts are very good, most PC's ship with crappy hardware and Winodws 98. You can use a normal PC for image editing for files under 40Mb, then you must go NT/2000 to get the performance advantage. We recieved the new HP 1 gigahertz Athlon at our store the other day, immediately I pulled out my test CD and started working the machine. Windows 98 couldn't handle the workload like a NT machine, everything was at least twice as slow as my 800 box. Mac OS juswants enough RAM so you dont have to do as much legwork as far as "configuring" a machine. So in a nutshell, I think your a Mac client, easy machine, just be aware that even the Mac has its own set of issues. My closing is directly targeted at Apple, please stop using "Mac is better than PC" in your marketing philosophy and advertising, its lame, petty, cheap, and unprofessional. I dont have the problems they say all PC users have and it makes me not want to own a Mac or be a part of their client base. Its high school behavior and Apple should just market their machines for what they are, very good computers. Instead they say, "the G4 using Final cut pro was twice as fast as a PIII 700", what? its not even accurate as Final cut is an Apple product and doesn't exist for PC, so what did they compare it against? Premire running on Windows 98? Try a real editing program like Speed RAzor on NT and then get back to me, Apple's marketing is like that and its not accurate or professional.

-- Cris Daniels (danfla@gte.net), June 18, 2000.

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP GUYS especially cris for writing so much the printwer that kosts 15k is a fuji pictrostat but lets forget about the printer for a while...

i have had my questions answered well but i would like more people who read my first question to give their opinions. I was surprised with the quick response and i am swaying towards a pc already because in fact that is what i wanted in the first place i just wanted to see wether anybody would advise me otherwise. If any more people out there think I should go for pc not mac in the field of digital image editing then post a response or mail me directly. I would be glad if more people who use macs and pcs proffesionally could mail me cause i will be shelling out a lot of money and i would like a professional opinion.

-- CHRIS TABISZ (SEIZURE@TALK21.COM), June 19, 2000.

I'm really not trying to talk you out of Mac so go that way if you want the easiest solution, in fact, if you don't have PC knowledge, go buy a Mac. You have to understand that most "artsy" people like Mac, and most "nerdy" people like PC. Building your own PC is incredibly rewarding and the benefits are enormous, its something I personally like doing. The nice part of Mac is that you buy a well built system out of the box and go do your work. Sure, I've probably spent quite a bit of time getting everything just the way I like it, but its something I enjoy. And unlike Apple's advertising, I don't have to tread through DOS and setting jumpers like they lead you to believe, my computers work just fine thank you. However, like I said, there are plenty of junk PC's out there which give users lots of trouble and make the entire platform look bad. Mac is not for the tinkering types and thats what I am. Its really not competition against platforms as much as options. Personally I'd run Linux if the graphics applications get ported, Then I dont have to deal with Microsoft or Apple :)

-- Cris Daniels (danfla@gte.net), June 19, 2000.

Chris:

I don't know if you've made your decision yet, but I thought I'd add my $.02.

I do graphic design and desktop publishing for a living and use both Macs and PCs on a daily basis (I have two of each platform). The only thing I'll add to other peoples' responses is this:

All other things being equal (i.e., software, speed, ram, your comfort level with each platform, etc.), I'd make the decision based on output. If you're going to be doing ALL of your own output, it doesn't matter which platform you choose. If, however, you're going to be sending material to outside printers or service bureaus, then you're safer to go Mac. Though they've come a long way in recent years, most commercial printers are still predominantly Mac-based.

Good luck in your decision!

Carol

-- Carol Levie (clevie@att.net), June 29, 2000.