Why are Apple entering a period of hibernation?

[fhoto]

Moxiemike, you make me feel like an ancient relic talking about "the film ages"

j/k although I still use film as much as I can I scan most of it, wich is where ps comes handy.
You're the first to mention colour management, and I take your word for it. Wich brings up another question, how good are the cinema displays? I've heard a lot of **** about the 23inch, although I've quite a lot of good things about the 20inch. But, if I can change subject completely, does anyone know how these compare to the eizo flats, in terms of colour management?
And here's a long shot...I've been using the lacie blueIV crt for a while, does anyone know how this compares to the cinema displays?

 

[fhoto]

index

damico
digitalfusion
elins
hills
coran
ingalls
wagner
kalalian

Thanks! will check it out!

 

[Euan]

Telling me that "You seem to like Dells.... why not just buy a Dell?" ain't helping because what I was asking is _why_ I shouldn't buy, for example a dell, instead of a pb

Apologies - was never meant to seem harsh, etc.

using dell as a mere example as it is a company wich offers pretty much the same product range as apple, and shares about the same view on performance/stabillity. My tone might have been a bit harsh, but my intention was never to lash out on how crappy mac is, quite the opposite actually.

I can understand the comparison - Dells allow more ability to customise hence provide a comparison between Apple and PC with similar specs.

Anyway, a lot of your comments have been quite helpful. The idea that apple constructs their computers for ultimate compatibillity between its components is quite neat and is what got me interested in mac in the first place.

Likewise, the fact that someone may have thought about how to best design and construct in order to provide the end user with a product that will help them increase effiency and productivity.

I checked through the comparison you posted (http://www.xvsxp.com/) but I saw nothing about wich performs better, just wether wich had best support for whatever?

I don't think that's the aim... maybe I'm wrong. I think it merely aims to demonstrate how well OS X and Win XP support 100 topics but more importantly how well these are supported.

 

[Moxiemike]

Moxiemike, you make me feel like an ancient relic talking about "the film ages"

j/k although I still use film as much as I can I scan most of it, wich is where ps comes handy.
You're the first to mention colour management, and I take your word for it. Wich brings up another question, how good are the cinema displays? I've heard a lot of **** about the 23inch, although I've quite a lot of good things about the 20inch. But, if I can change subject completely, does anyone know how these compare to the eizo flats, in terms of colour management?
And here's a long shot...I've been using the lacie blueIV crt for a while, does anyone know how this compares to the cinema displays?

The LaCie blue's are awesome with a Mac for CM, I had one before I got the first 17" which sucked for CM, but the 23", IMHO, is incredible. Did a shoot in a mall, took the 23" which was getting beat by sun through a skylight, and I couldn't see the screen well enough to color correct, but by knowing my white balance (digital) and applying the right curves (a nikon thing) and color profiling it, I was able to blindly get the color right.

As far as the 23 in practical apps, it's perfect. I send stuff to a variety of printers, for a glossy mag, several ad agencies and design firms including my own, as well as making prints from my epson and hp large formats and as long as I profile right, I'm able to get consistent color across the board, and a kind-of WYSIWYG color in that what I see on the screen matches within a very close color tolerance what I get in print-- and this ranges from inkjet to pro photo printing, wally-mart prints, heidelberg 6 and 8 color presses, digital indigo presses, you name it. If you take a few hours and learn profiling, you'll easily think "that extra $XXX on a mac was well spent"

 

[Moxiemike]

Moxiemike, you make me feel like an ancient relic talking about "the film ages"

hey. film ain't dead. the one thing digital still cannot do is capture the range of tones in "negative" and "print" of a properly exposed, well processed and nicely printed black and white film shot.

Hence why the AE-1 and FM are still in the stable and not the museum

 

[mad jew]

jesus, why do people get offended when you post things like this?

Can I apologise on everybody's behalf. We're all a bit grumpy because we were hoping for new PowerBooks at Paris but apparently they're not coming. We're a fickle lot.

The idea that apple constructs their computers for ultimate compatibillity between its components is quite neat and is what got me interested in mac in the first place.

This bit cannot be underestimated. Think of how well console games do with limited hardware (ignore the new ones coming out now). Optimised hardware and software, when properly integrated, is faster, more efficient and more reliable generally speaking. This is one of the points that shrinks the gap between the arguably better hardware in a top PC and the slightly worse hardware in a PowerBook.

I discussed this with him and he pretty much agreed that that's the case with apple... and with dell, and with ibm, and with sony... difference being that apple has turned it into a marketing strategy of uncomparable magnitude, according to him. Something wich seems quite logical.

True to a point, but remember the major component that Apple still has control over is the operating system. Dell, Sony and IBM still rely on Microsoft for Windows. Nevertheless, I agree Apple probably market it for more than it's worth when they're not marketing the iPod (which is pretty rare these days).

I checked through the comparison you posted (http://www.xvsxp.com/) but I saw nothing about wich performs better, just wether wich had best support for whatever? Is OSX really that much better optimized for its hardware, compared to XP pro?

Okay, sorry, that link was more aimed at generik but it didn't come out in white. Nevertheless, it's a great site that simply compares the two (three) operating systems and nothing else. It admits that if it tried to take into account hardware, there would be far too many complexities for it to be feasible.

Long story short: OSX is far better optimised than XP is, and with god reason. Apple has a much smaller user base and a relatively miniscule amount of different types of hardware configurations its OS can be installed upon.

"If OS X isn't a big deal to you, enjoy your new PC!" - Is this what it all comes down to?

If that's the case, I really got to ask this question. Does it matter as I'll pretty much only be using one or two programs on it, both wich work just as fine on a mac as on a pc?
I'm asking this, as mad jew quite correctly guessed I have little experience with OSX.

If you get a Mac, you will fall in love with the OS. This thread is perfect evidence of that. Of course, you don't need to be infatuated with your OS to be productive. Since you are using two apps, you are missing out on one of OSX's best features which is memory management or multitasking. Nevertheless, I don't have nearly enough experience to say whether these two apps will be very different Mac to PC but like you, I doubt they would be. As such, I say you would be happy with XP but you would absolutely love OSX. I'm not kidding, I used to be the kid at school who beat up nerds who loved computers but since I bought my first Mac, I've become one of the biggest geeks I know. (Disclaimer: sorry to all the geeks I ever beat up and sorry for the incredibly shallow and evangelical "since I went Mac" statement.)

Another question. I've percieved OSX as a huge bundle with everything integrated into eachother. Is this correct? I'm asking because the reason why I like XP is that when you first install it, it's full of crap. Thing being, you can throw out pretty much everything you don't need or want, thereby boosting the speed of it. Is this possible with OSX? Or is it unnecessary in OSX?

It's not necessary. OSX is set up so that if things aren't being used, they don't still take up resources. This is one of my biggest gripes with XP. It provides the user with a multitude of tasks and processes that are unnecessary and given completely unrecognisable/uninterpretable names which still manage to use up resources.

Ideally, you could test drive an OSX system for a week but that's probably not possible. The size of this community is testament to the infatuation mac users have with their systems. It's something that is better experienced than explained. I don't want to tell you that you must switch because it sounds like you are happy with Windows. To be honest, I was also happy with Windows. OSX offers a lot more though. I'm still learning about the OS, despite having used it for almost two years straight now. Whether or not you do in fact switch, feel free to stick around in the MacRumors community. Ignore the hostile welcome you got earlier, we're not usually this grumpy. Sorry.

 

[Blue Velvet]

You're the first to mention colour management...

Not true.

Edit: And yes, the Lacie's are great although if your's is getting on a bit then that may be problematic.

 

[Moxiemike]

fhoto, you should also post the hell out of your photos in the photo threads. we need more "pro" advice and tips.... there's a lot of people interested in photo here, and it's a good thing to STW

m

 

[iMeowbot]

"If OS X isn't a big deal to you, enjoy your new PC!" - Is this what it all comes down to?

Truthfully? Yes, that's about it, and really it's always been that way, since long before there was a Windows or Mac OS.

If you start your purchase decision by looking at lists of hardware specs, you're going to be disappointed because you're looking at raw data, not information. Successful specification has to start at the other end. What do you want your computer to do for you? What software will do what you want to do best? What operating systems are best able to exploit the softre features that you need? Only when you have those questions answered can you reasonably start looking at hardware that will run the software you want. An Altix would look pretty cool in the living room, but it's entirely useless in spite of all its memory and raw speed because it doesn't run the software I want to use.