Anyone can post in this thread and vote in the poll, even if you're not registered. But registering is recommended.
Printable View
Anyone can post in this thread and vote in the poll, even if you're not registered. But registering is recommended.
I can build my own PC and get just what I want. :D
I find it extremely irritating that I am limited to my P.C. only, to access my Xara programs. Xara has announced they are coming out with an open source program, but nothing has been mentioned for MAC.
As I always use a Mac as do most professional graphics and media people I have not bought Xara and have no plans to do so - I did check out a copy on a PC and would not consider it to be industry standard software although great fun for home users. If they do finally bring out a Mac version I would consider buying a copy to complement our existing software.
Just curious...
If one sees two professional renderings side by side, can one tell if it was done in a MAC or a PC? :)
James it depends on consideration of the difference in Gamma and the default dpi between the two platforms.
Mac renderings displayed on a PC can be very dark because many Mac's are configured for a higher Gamma. The inverse is true when displaying a PC image on the Mac.
There is also the "native" bitmap file type; .bmp for PC and .pic for Mac.
Taking the differences into consideration it would be a toss up or personal preference of the viewer if they know which was created on their personal favorite platform.
Half a year ago I jumped over from the PC to the mac with a great MAC pro and an Mac portable. Afther a view week of struggling (i whas used to work with Bill Gates for many many years) i am now a ver happy Mac user. One of the big reasons to step over whas to have the possibility to use windows with help of VM-ware and Parallels. First i used Parrallels know i use VM-ware.
When i go back to the virtual PC i do that fore only one reason and that is to use XARA. tried out all Xara alternatives on the mac but i simply have to admit that i am deeply in love (yes maiby also addicted to) with Xara.
So the biggest wish on this moment is to go out and buy XARA-MAC version. So please reprogram it. I will be one of the first buyers. If its to much work than please let go of all the DTP stuff and concentrate on the great graphics.
Greatings from (Mac) Harrie Denkers from Holland .
I have only used Mac for the last 4 years. I am sorry that you selected wx widgets as a rewrite tool rather than just rebuilding in c++ for the MAC. I used Xara a lot previously but have been forced to use other tools since converting. Isn't 4 years of not listening enough for Xara.
Mike
I love Xara so much - so called professional progs from adobe are like herding cats by comparison, it's the reason I brought a pc.
I'm not into the pc mac thing, that's personal choice, but think that because there are lots of mac out there it is shortsighted of anyone, especially such a great prog, to not give us what we want and need.
Please soon...
Macuser - mostly
Smiles
JonC
www.jonathanchase.com
I use Xara under VMWare on Mac OS X and awaiting native Mac version.
Interesting. At the moment with 30.3% only using a PC and being happy suggests that almost 70% would like to see Xara on a Mac.
Good!
Paul
I use Xara on a Mac via Parallels Desktop.
Amanda
I've been a PC guy since DOS. I've enjoyed Windows throughout the years, but have become increasing frustrated with the way Microsoft treats its customers.
My wife and I want to go to Mac, but there are certain programs I use all the time (like Xara) that won't run on Mac. I'd like to start using Ubuntu as my operating system on my PC, but there are other programs I use that won't run on it. Basically, I want to get away from Windows...so however I can do that will be good. I'll probably end up with a Mac and an Ubuntu machine...both running a Windows emulator until all of the programs I use are available for both.
Am I right in thinking that M$ has added stuff to the licencing of Vista to prevent it's use on the mac platform?
paul
There are lots of people right now who would have to get new computers as their old hardware won't run Vista. We decided to got to MAC ourselves and I am using Xara now on my MAC running Parallels. Xara does fine, not all software does, it creates lots of lagging in CorelDRAW, none in Xara that I've noticed. Did have some problems getting my Wacom tablet to work in the Virtual Machine with pressure sensitivity, but I unplug the tablet and then wait a minute or two, and then it is recognized in Windows, it would be nice not to plug and un-plug so much, but it doesn't hurt the tablet or the jacks.
The MAC OS is more stable. This last year alone I've had to reinstall Windows four times. And that is just this last year. My OEM version of Windoze XP Professional has always done that so I was done with that. Reformatting is no fun, all the Windoze downloads again, sometimes to just do it all again, as you can get a virus from the getgo, did that too.
I am looking forward to the release of Leopard in September and a straight install of DRAW in Boot Camp. That way there should be no quirkiness. Other users of DRAW use is in BootCamp and have told me it is okay that way. I do love Xara, it is great software but as I am always using DRAW where I work, and they won't change, I could use it more often if I could import the Xara made .pdfs, which will not import. Acrobat Distiller works for that however. If I can do the job natively in CorelDRAW, I do as there is better support for spot color with transparency and drop shadows and duotones which make separations correctly. Rather than what people say, if you know your keyboard shortcuts and scripts, DRAW is anything but slow and clunky.
Xara's vector editing tools are the best, and their vector feathering too. Anytime I have original cartoons to do, I use Xara, or occasionally use it for business cards, special display type brought in from Xara3D.
Xara is, I know, trying to be more compatible with Illustrator, the "industry standard", well "standard" is by no means "deluxe", Xara can do more in many regards than Illustrator already. Where Illustrator and CorelDRAW differ to Xara primarily is in the use of spot color and correct color management. It's great -- the new Xara allows you to pick a pixel editor.
I wish Illustrator and Corel which both imports so many formats, would choose to add .xar to the list of supported file types.
Corel isn't doing as badly in the numbers of people actually making their living with it these days. It isn't how much you are like Adobe that counts, that software is S-L-O-W. Xara should be proud it is better, not worse. And much more affordable.
Looking at your average flyer from Best Buy or what have you --- it's simply "better bang for the buck with a PC." Going down to your local geek store and picking up your own pieces and putting it all together yourself: often always better and cheaper yet (but at worst you know exactly what you are getting and paying for). :cool:
I need a new box too: From the looks of it: Vista is not going be something I will be happy with. This time I'm going pre-config HP (for the first time ever --- makes me shudder... *brrr*)
Mac is already dead HW-wise... And the OS only seems more stable because there are less developers focusing on it. Can't see the point? Running iTunes and shopping from their store might be easy enough for a 90-year-old grandma to do... But nothing that I would ever consider doing. :confused: ;)
Less viruses? Sure... Why bother with the Mac? Hardly anyone is buying one! :p
Apple will take over the known universe when they concentrate on "funking up" PC gadgetry... Apple probably makes more money from iPod Nanos than their computer division - can't see why they don't go where the money and buyers are?
In general: I have no idea what people do with their PCs to make it not work: I have run every imaginable configuration: hardware and software wise for over 15 years, and have never lost a single file due to a crash.
At work with endless machines and OSs and at home with many as well. The only problem I have ever had: one blown power supply (4 years later) because I tried to save a few bucks. I just don't get it...? :confused:
Then again - perhaps Windows Vista is what will turn the tide? MS messed up with that one!
Personally, I don't give a monkey's tail what it says on the box or on the OS --- I look in my wallet and what I can get for it.
Risto
Following that philosophy, you'd probably have a house full of stuff from the local supermarket - the cheapest TV, the cheapest HiFi, a no-name MP3 player, the ugliest most uncomfortable furniture going, and so on.
The important thing is that the price is right.
OK, it's an exaggeration, but most people don't think Like that - they have a number of choices and it'll be a compromise between what they would buy if money wasn't important and what they can buy given the money they have. Mixed in there are choices involving aesthetics, brand reputation, reliability and what being associated with such an item says about them. You get the drift. If money is tight we'll gravitate towards low purchase cost.
The point is that while many things are commodities, with money to spare, or a strong motivation, we will buy the more expensive product even if it is functionally the same as a low price equivalent. Just ask any teenager about clothes and footwear!
It seems to me that you can't mix in PCs and Apples as bare equivalent commodities - in many ways an Apple (for many of us) is the thing you'd buy in preference to most PCs if you had the money, just as you might buy a VAIO in preference to a cheaper make of PC.
Naturally if you feel that aesthetics or brand are unimportant for a particular item, you are going to go ahead and follow the price point and most likely buy a generic PC.
Paul (who'd like a modern Apple but builds his own PCs and has an old G4)
Often people make choices based on a process of elimination - like the old saying about any fool knowing what they want, but a wise man knowing what
he doesn't need.
As things stand, if I were to replace my machine now I would choose linux, or mac; not because I think either are the best thing since whatever, but because I do not want the hassle of vista. And it will be a hassle. The list of software/hardware that will not port at all is long and depressing. The cost is such that [to me] a mac would no longer be a major extra expense.
If I have to go through all that I'm inclined to follow in Sally's footsteps...
I can see your point, I don`t want Vista, it`s like they want to own your computer just because you use their operating system.
But the problem is, Direct X 10 is only for Vista, that means getting newer
graphicscards, who are most likely direct x 10 compatible, might run into
trouble if you wanna stick to XP. So eventually you would have to
surrender to 'Big Windows is watching you'.
So I have to wait and see what I would do when it is time for
a new machine.
I now miss my amiga more then ever, it sat between PC and Mac for me.
I wish the development would have gone on further, oh, it did, but not that
seriously. So it will be Mac most likely because I am sure I would get lost
in all the Linux variants and settings. Which means all new software, I need
to win the lottery. ;)
Well, not cheapest --- "best/most bang for the buck"... It's most evident in laptops... A $2000 Mac is nothing more than a $899 HP one, but with a crappier graphics card and screen --- but granted, the MAC one is white... :D (Which might perhaps look better with your Latte at your local café). But hurray --- the Mac comes with preconfigured shopping from iTunes, and Keynote (even more ridiculous effects than PowerPoint (effects that would make you look like a clown if used for any major business).
Oh, yes, the Mac often always comes with a cool looking, but unusable mouse... :rolleyes:
The thing I fail understand: Why are Macs more expensive than the pieces your pick up from the curb and put together? It also seem to be the same reasoning for local schools --- there are no Macs anymore... They were donated as raffle prices for the fundraiser Bingo a couple of years ago.
What am I missing? I have used my fair share of Macs, and to me they are no more than weak-performing (but cool looking) PCs? :confused:
Risto
I think that the PC benefits from economies of scale - lots of expertise and manufacturing capacity for PC standard hardware selling into a huge market, while Apple are a niche.
I'm beginning to feel that you're not too keen on Macs Risto!
Seems to me that if most Mac users had your experience then Apple would have been out of business, long ago.
As far as "best bang for a buck" goes, it's a policy I tend to follow, but it's not applicable to everything. It's not a strategy that will give you exactly what you want - it may be the most money efficient, but it's not going to give you the best experience or product (whether that's a PC, Mac or anything else).
Some people will be happy to spend their $$ on a Mac because it gives them what they want, others will get the experience they want by being guided by "best Bang for the Buck" and enjoying their purchases knowing full well they haven't spent more than they need to.
I think it's important every now and again to abandon the the "Best bang.." strategy and just buy what you aspire to (and can afford, or just about afford) because that means that you are more important than having money sitting in a bank.
This is getting away from the purpose of the thread..
Paul
um a mac is also a pc. because pc stands for "personal computer". a mac is ALSO a computer. and it can also be PERSONAL. So I dont get the question. maybe you meant Windows
I think most people interpret PC as a computer descended from the IBM PC architecture. PCs can also run other operating systems, so while they usually run Windows, they can also run other operating systems such as Linux or Unix.
There's no suggestion that macs aren't personal, nor is there any reason not to continue to use PC to describe descendants of the IBM PC architecture (it's just like calling a vacuum cleaner a Hoover, even if it's really a Dyson..).
Paul
I see the move to an Intel platform for the Mac as an attempt by Apple to help lower the cost of their hardware. Wheather or not Apple will pass on the savings to their customers is another matter.
Apple likes their higher prices because there are those in the world that think paying a higher price indicates greater affluence. Not necessarily greater value.
The few Mac computers that have been allowed to be setup on the network were I have worked have been the source of more hardware failures than any comparable number of computers running Microsoft Windows. The Macs have also required more support hours. Even after isolating them to a native Apple network there have been more issues with the MacIntosh computers.
Three out of the first ten we purchased had to be returned to the factory because they would not even power up.
BTW the only application used on the Mac computers (other than the basic web browser) is Adobe Photoshop. The Macs are used only by the advertising/graphics department. The photographers take photos of the client's products and the graphics department hits them with some plug-ins then supplies them as .jpg images for the web developers.
Just my 2 cents towards the Mac debate going on in this thread.
Risto, I have a good reason for going this route and if you choose to be offended that it your problem.
Windows XP that I have has been anything but stable. Unlike the blithering idiot you seem to take me for, we have built and configured all except two of the computers we bought until the MAC. I also am looking into doing some video editing when I get around to it, is a better platform to do it on. I want to do things such as Z-Brush and getting the right setup to do so just makes sense. Besides, many of the programs I run can also run on MAC, I deal with a lot of MAC people and it does help to be able to be on the same page.
You don't have to run an Apple mouse unless you want to. The right click does not support the drag and duplicate I always do it that way, but I can do that with my tablet too that I use all the time. Rather than getting bogged down with it, I just plug in a different mouse. Pressure sensitivity is better, color is better. Printing to my Canon wide berth i9900 is superb, even BETTER. Life is about learning and making the most of one's opportunities to live and improve. Why spend more time as time really costs more than the investment in equipment in the long run, it just makes sense.
Getting insulting is only required when you can't win an argument with the facts. What you choose to do is fine for you. If others take another route, is it your money that they are spending, what skin is it off your nose, anyway?
Xara runs excellently under Parallels, I have had some problem with lag with CorelDRAW but found out how to resolve that today on my own. It is just a different sort of learning but much the same sort of reasoning to solve problems on a MAC anyway. As it is, to know MAC as well in this industry adds onto one's employability, and does not subtract from it.
Being able to talk eye to eye with others and to work things out and problem solve is key to my job.
Far from MAC going out of business and being put under by PCs, they now own Disney. Really sounds like they are closing their doors.
We put people on the moon, you suppose that the redundant translation which makes Windows unstable and in which few ever even go into DOS is any longer required? It is a throw back to the way things were done. In order to keep up with the speed of things in the future, how you going to do that?
On the one hand, one who has that experience has the more valued opinion as they are basing their knowledge on their direct experience not a bunch of good ol' boys hype. Besides what are you afraid of? Sounds a bit parochical from my stand point, and really is quite funny watching you blow your sprocket, it couldn't be good for your health.
It was a choice here between running Linux and MAC, two of the four computers here is running Linux, and one is runinng MAC. Who cares!
If Xara didn't find is interesting, why would they decide to port to Linux and ulitmately, to MAC if there isn't a market for their software? Far from being old fashioned the U.S. government uses Linux and not Microsoft for computers which they don't want to fail. They also use Windows for other office systems. Could be they have a reason in trusting our defense systems to Linux instead, gee, that is a no brainer. Since it is quite similar to the Unix based OS of MAC...hmmm.
Everytime there is change there are people always upset. And more and more changes are happening faster and faster. We cannot stop change only try to make it less painful for ourselves to fit into the new tomorrow. And why is that? So we have JOBS.
That is the whole point of trying to make Xara professional software, so people can work. Adobe products, if you own all of them, there is a lot less of anything else to own. But that yes there are things which are convenient and nice to use on the MAC system is also true. I could care less about iTunes, though I do like recording with Garage Band, but I also do the same with Cakewalk, but the instruments are really fun in GarageBand. My kids use MAC and it is part of the parent in me not to foster and maintain the generation gap which existed between and my parents generation. In fact they did much to convince me of the hours of greater family fun and togetherness that making this transition could provide.
It doesn't hurt to expand one's horizons. I tell people what I have found out, it is always their choice. It has to be what makes sense to each of us, not "oh, you are so stupid to do ....." Really. Hard to do what I do and figure that I am laboring under stupidity too, I'd start believing in miracles then.
Oops, I'd get banned for that one. Just kidding.
All kidding aside, we all find ourselves in a time of flux. And all decisions cost money. No matter how much or little one spends in hardware, it takes more RAM and speed to continue to push an ever bloating OS. Somehow if Xara can manage to be efficient, then it is humanly possible. Isn't it!?!
Bill Gates may have marketed a blanket stuffed with Dummit Down, but I do think that this latest and greatest is just too much to sneeze at. And OS that makes sense, there are two popular ones, I chose the one which makes more sense to me in my line of work.
Around here are serious lifelong Xara addicts, rather than threatening the success of Xara software it rather insures it that even if a port to MAC isn' forthcoming, the user gets what they want: Xara on a MAC.
Sometimes it costs more to get what you want.
But it is worth it.
Hi,
I must agree with both Sally and Risto,uhm
I think back,when computers were introduced there was a difference in what they were for ;Windows was an office computer and a Mac was graphics computer.
Until MS was smart enough to make it for personal use and bought everything to make it complete
The thing is this;in those days even Apple was a monopolist
and even nowadays people who are learning graphics only work with Mac,because this the standard??
So have to agree with Sally,cause you must know what you're talking about if you're in this line of work with people who work only with Mac
Also agree with Risto,cause even now Mac seems to dictate the market in graphics,but it's not the greatest computer
And there's more software for windows to use
@Sally,if the Xara version for Mac is importent why is there no priority in completing a build.
Win 2000 is the same as XP,without the personal whistles and better used if it's your work instead of a hobby
Besides I can make my PC better every day by buying better hardware components just going to a local store
As for statistics
Mac platform use 4% - Win platform 86%
Safari 1.3% - win platform (moz.FF,NS,IE) the rest
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
So you might be right that printers and graphic designers work with Mac
But the consumers and potential clients are not
This is MHO,Hans
Chances are that for professional graphics work, your professional clients will also be Mac users, so while the PC will still outweigh the Mac I don't think it's as wide a margin as for 'general' computer users.
It really comes down to the mix of your customers and what you are comfortable with. Most of my (non-graphics) life I've hardly ever seen a Mac, but recently as I've gravitated towards Flash they've become commonplace in the media companies I've been to.
I have to say that the PCs I have have been very stable under W2K and WXP - an OS crash is very rare and a program fault is also very rare.
I have a G4 also - it's lightly used solely because my software is mostly for windows and it's not nearly as fast as my younger windows machines. I do enjoy using it and I am really impressed by the design of the hardware itself.
I remember some TV programme comparing buying a PC and Mac and how long it took to set up the machines and get online - the Mac won by a huge margin. We can all debate whether that's a useful benchmark or not, but it does illustrate one thing: Apples commitment to the user experience, something I feel that Microsoft has never quite got right.
We bought our son a laptop recently and it runs Vista. We're already upgrading the memory and it's so tempting to install WXP. We all wish it had come with WXP in the first place.
Why didn't we buy him a Mac?
1) Ristos "bang for buck"
2) He does like playing football games - mostly only available on PC.
Paul
I agree on that, as I remember what nightmare 98 could be. Then again you have to do quite a lot of maintenance and management to keep it perky.
My solution is to make an image of a clean install disk with Norton ghost and to revert the minute something is not to my taste.
I am tempted to switch on my next machine, as now processors change every six months and so I will have to change the whole bazaar anyway. I have respect for apple's work on their platform.
What irritates me is that mac seems to head towards more and more gadgets and fireworks with Leopard. The same can be said about vista, so hardware updates mainly serves 'user experience' and less the on applications.
I wish Os could become much lighter, simpler and more logic. A couple of lessons could be learned out of the Xara interface. :-)
-Coco
I don't think either windows or mac machines have much to differentiate between them apart from hype and cost. That's why I'll stick with PC's.
Never bought a pair if Nike trainers either. I hate being taken for a ride.
Life is a banquet, a smorgaasbord. You have what you have and you decide if you like it or not.
We needed another PC in this case we got a MAC.
I am not telling anyone they have to do the same, what they should do or think. This was a choice we made. That is all.
My point is for a long time many MAC users have wanted Xara. If they want to invest in Parallels and in a Windows OS to run it, they can have it. Between the Windows OS, Parallels, and the cost of Xara, they are probably getting equal to what Illustrator costs. In which case, Xara developers may feel why put more money in porting to MAC. The only reason is in the end to be taken more seriously, in which case, what is the reason for the "Professional tools" and "Illustrator Compatiblity"? Is that they feel that is their market, offering this to Illustrator users. Usually, a serious Illustrator user is doing so on a MAC and are often such a gungho MAC user, to run Parallels and Windows to run Xara will meet with: "Are our kidding?" So then again Xara may continue to work on porting to MAC. Because if their studies show that that is where the potential customer base is, it would make sense. Either that or you continue to appeal to users of PaintShopPro to switch to Xara because it isn't that much more money even now. Your appeal is to CorelDRAW users so they can do post processing of their work. If they are giving us Pantone Colors then why if you are appealing to PSP users? CorelDRAW is predominantly a PC phenomenon as their last port to MAC was version 11. If people buy MAC for better quality, it is clear that Xara produced gorgeous graphics. The only thing lacking is a bit more polish on using Spot Color. If MAC costs more and the Adobe Creative Suite is by no means cheap, yes, if they are going to buy something which combines all that and good quality for a good price, yes it will sell.
In the "which OS do I use" debate, one should consider that there are things each does unique to them. It is all in what way you care to work. Having dabbled around at several different programs that you have no PC equivalent in art programs, yes, I can certainly see why Xara is something tempting the MAC user could want to have, that is to have Xara even if it cost them something to do it. Yes, it would be worth it. The person who is the MAC user is buying quality. The person who is buying a Lexus or a Volvo vs a 20 year old VW bug is buying quality. If your object is in the end to get the quality you are after, then you stop buying what you don't want. And live with that choice too.
Whether you are on one platform or another, it isn't going to give you great ideas. You either have them or you don't.
If you want to do movies. MAC has a definite advantage there. You can invest in hardware up the wazoo, at least if you are running Linux, it isn't all bloat, quite efficient actually and your equipment will last longer, again not as many programs to Linux users are usually doing the multi OS thing. The main difference in the end is Windows can run Linux, so can MAC, Windows can run Windows, so can MAC, Linux when running on a PC can almost get that to run MAC, but there isn't enough power left unless you have RAM adapters to increase your RAM high enough. If you are going to run mulitple OS, the base OS needs to be the most stable, not the most unstable OS available. It is like a skyscraper, you can build higher if your foundation is good and stable. MAC has its own system and seeing as its market share is so small, what the hell does it matter? Or does it just hurt that perhaps someone took a chance and got what you may have secretly longed for? Don't we all want to have it all at times? Isn't that the classic trouble with human beings? The minute they get that new toy, there is a newer model of it, and then there is this gadget and that car. One cannot budget for all of it. So you make choices. Someone doesn't have the latest and greatest anymore, and it is all sour grapes. I am enjoying my grapes, they are quite sweet from where I sit. But then I am supposed to be miserable? Really I am not. My husband bought himself a TV which is $3600 before tax. Give me a break. I told him at least what I use a computer for, I earn the money back. It's just called being fair around here. Whether MAC which is both hardware and software is a monopoly, the government really does not enforce the Anti-Trust Act, the schools tell you about it, just not the decision to no longer enforce it. Other things are more to worry about such as a private company is the Federal Reserve which controls our money, creating a debt based economy. It is the reason so many Americans can no longer afford to own a home. Now that is something I'd care more about rather than if MAC owns the patent on writing an OS only for equipment it builds and manufactures. Besides, in the age when the jobs of the U.S. citizen is outsourced to India and China, MAC is a major employer of Americans. Americans who work have enough money to spend on printing. That keeps me working doesn't it? Where are your PC parts manufactured? People complain about Walmart, but look at where that hard earned cash is going! Right out of the country.
As far as people liking glitz and something sleek, sexy and less clunky, if people didn't like all the glitz.... but it is what sells. And in the end, what I spent on my MAC was comparable to what I could have spent on a custom PC, my son built a gaming machine, and it isn't exactly nickles and dimes let me tell you. You can throw in more RAM and hard drives as many as you want, don't have to start over. That is the real point. Several years down the line, the PC cannot be resold. But you can donate it to your local school district which I do suggest you do. It shouldn't ever go in a land fill.
I also own a Canon Rebetl XT 8.3 megapixel camera, and I have now the power to print edge to edge posters of my work with my i9900 Canon wide berth printer, up to 13" x 19". I suppose someone will tell me that the printer they bought at Thrifty Drug Store does good quality, that their little camera they used in Girl Scouts still takes good pictures. Of course it does, but if you want to do more you get the equipment to do what you are wanting to do. I can take portraits of my family, print them out and do wall portraits, which otherwise are extrememly expensive from a professional studio. So I am dumb, or is it crazy like a fox? Just one of those portrait sessions can cost more than what I spent on my equipment. I can print to my hearts content now. I can manipulate my photos in ways I couldn't do before. I can do what is in my head. That is why I bought what I did.
What you do with your money is in the end your choice. But life is about making wiser choices. Even if that costs a little more from time to time. In the end, my choice allows me to do it all myself which costs me less in many other ways.
BTW, Egg, you egged on a lot of good conversation. So thanks.
It is interesting the Apple vs PC debate. It often reminds me of the McGee's and the McCays and their generational feud on where their property line is. Well sort of.....;) When I told my Brother I bought an Apple, he is a web designer, he said, "I hate Macs!" Well I did to until I bought one.
I have owned 2 Microns, 2 Dells, 2 Sonys and now a G4. And while it took me awhile to move from PC language to Mac language I have to say I prefer Mac over PC. It seems to me my graphics are better, it could be me of course, but I do not have the pixel action when I would enlarge my images.
In the Mac there is no housekeeping, no need to defrag, just drag and drop. empty the trash and I am done. Beautiful. No virus software so no dealing with Norton, Macaffee, etc. And NO Windows, NO Blue Screen of Death! Macs are plain simple to understand, a program may fail, but Linux keeps rolling!
But in the end does it really Matter? I agree with Sally, no it doesn't
we like the ride of the Mac just fine, You who drive a PC like it just fine
as well. It doesn't matter because you see we still will get to our destination, the finished work and with both platforms there will be some twist and turns. Because you see, a computer is a computer and sometimes, whether it be Mac or PC they just do what they want regardless of who is behind the wheel.
Cheers,
Syd:)
what ever works eh.... :)
Quite a funny thread this.
I am also moving over to the Mac. Let me rephrase that. I am adding a Mac into my current crop of Pc's.
If I get on with it I hope to replace my entire network with Macs. The old issues of having to lose applications I currently use on my Pc are gone.
I have seen Windows Vista running through that boot thing (Cant remember what its called) and it was no different to running on a standard pc.
It doesn't mean I hate Pc's. Never really had any massive issues in the 15 plus years I have used and supported them. Vista though did make me look around. Silly prices for too many options was a step too far but I can live with that. Thats what Microsoft are in business for. To make money. I don't begrudge them that.
I just want a change and I like what I see on the other side of the fence. If it ends up that the grass looked greener then... Well I learn from mistakes.
Either way it will be fun giving it a shot.
Cheers
Mike R
I remember when i started to do GD Professionally i had built my pc from scratch
it is what i'm used to and more familiar with.
i've never had any colour issues with my output files. (Proper claibration of card and screen)
have my pc streamlined to run just my essential software, not used for web surfing or emails or any of that type it is pure;y for my 3d and 2d work.
not once have i lost a file or corrupted a file.
never recieved a call from a printer to say they can't print the file.
so for me i do not see the point in purchasing a mac if i can do my work, quickly, efficiently and accurately. however i will be buying one to see how it is and if i can see any benifit to me and my work.
just my 2 cents
Robbie
I mostly use my HP and IBM pc's for graphics work, but I also have a G4 PowerMac w/ 866 MHz and 1-Gb ram which I use sometimes (just when I need the change)
I also use my Compaq s5300nx for graphics now (under Linux) now that Xara LX is around!! Also my IBM T-21 laptop for when I need to get outta da house and it comes with me and my sketch pad once every other weekend on a Sunday as I like to get out and take in some creativity.
But all in all for me, I have always seen this PC vs. MAc thing just as silly as the old Ford vs. Chevy thing... You use what you want / what you like.... and that's that.
in the end it all boils down to the problem of getting your administration to cough those few extra dollars, which they never have! SO, love it or not, it end being PC ....
on another thread, I talk about how I got xara to work on mac using puppy linux booting from CD.
It's not full xara of course, but XaraLX, but for me, it's the drawing and overall feel that's important. A mac xara is in the works I think.
http://www.talkgraphics.com/showthread.php?t=29584
I hope a mac xara is in the works as you say. Just ordered a macbook and an iMac. Jumping in with both feet.
:)
Cheers
Mike R