Ten years is old enough...for a computer

[paulr]

My original point was buy used and buy wise. I bought an 6 year old MAC at a fraction of a new one.

This can be a great approach even if you don't go quite that far. Get a machine that's just 3 or 4 years old and you'll save many hundreds of dollars, be compatible with everything, and only suffer a minor performance compromise. Earlier generation Mac Pros continue to get faster with improved OS efficiency and newer versions of Photoshop. This never used to be the case ...

You can even save a few hundred by buying a refurb or discounted previous model directly from Apple.

I'd only consider buying a brand new up-to-date machine if I was overflowing with cash, or had some special need for cutting edge performance.

[rdenney]

I don't think the facts bear that out. Comparing desktop workstations, the only way to put an equivalent system together for cheaper than a mac is to build your own. This isn't an integrated vs. non-integrated issue; it's a product vs. kit issue.

You can't do it by ordering from a company like Dell. And you can't get anything like the Mac's industrial design, and you can't get OSX ... which is more significant than all the hardware stuff.

You must be putting a lot of meaning into "equivalent". Because I quoted prices above that are taken straight from Apple's online store, and even at a $2000 price point, a Mac does not provide the same features as the $1000 HP I just bought. The cheapest Mac Mini, which does not support multiple monitors, provides no larger than a 500MP disk, and costs much more than the HP. And the HP, at $1000, came with two monitors, while the Mini, at much more, came with none. Add the same monitors to the Mini, and it's at two grand, too. Except that you'll have to plug the second monitor into some other computer.

What am I missing, Paul? Do I give up a second monitor so that Photoshop will load CS4 slightly faster? Is something about industrial design totally undermined by having two mouse buttons instead of one? Actually, having two monitors is hugely useful to me--I can put Vuescan on one screen and Photoshop on the other, and still have room for the Photoshop tool palettes without invading the image area. I don't feel like I'm fighting the design of a PC, though I often feel like I'm fighting the design of my iPhone. I know it's not a fair comparison, but, seriously, what am I missing that defines "equivalent" for you?

Or, where have you been pricing your PC's?

If it's just MacOS, then why do you mention that separately? And if it is, then let's compare the processor, RAM, disk size, interface options (the HP had firewire in addition to USB, which made my Nikon scanner happy), and approximate graphics capability. When looking at a Mac with an i5 processor, 8 gigs of RAM, a DVD combo drive (none had lightscribe that I saw, though mine does--which saves on labeling), something in the capability range of a Radeon 6450, and a disk larger than a terabyte, the Apples start pushing three grand. If you have to have all that just so you can run MacOS, then the difference in price is what you are paying for the privilege.

Explain it to me. Don't just tell me I'm wrong--I've researched the prices and put the data here.

Rick "who respects Paul's opinion but not without data" Denney

[rdenney]

tried it on my wifes MAC MINI works fine. took me 20 minutes... while writing this response.

So, what about my other requirements? Have you never used a computer with two monitors? I won't even bring up my engineering software which only runs on PC's--that would be too particular to me. By the way, the thousand-buck computer I just bought does that Photomerge task less than a minute.

And I know that you and Paul want me to buy an old used computer, but I'm not going to. I'm happy to buy old used lenses, and old used cameras. But do I really have to buy an old used Apple to get the same price/performance as a new, fully warrantied and current PC? Does that not demonstrate my point?

Rick "what if you want to install a Blu-Ray drive?" Denney

[rdenney]

Just seeking to calm down some of the hyperbole...

If the Mac premium is $1000 then how can I buy a macbook for under $1000?
It is certainly true that Apple overcharges for things like memory and hard-disks, but I don't think that the premium for the base hardware is all that much. Certainly you pay a certain amount for design and materials, but some things are worth it - for example just being able to open the machine and having it work makes my Macbook much easier to use than the stack of Dell/IBM/Toshiba laptops I have around. The touchpad is also a step above the others. These are small things, but they add up and are not usually quantified in discussion of GHz and GB.

I am not talking about laptops. Laptops are a whole different thing, and my laptop requirements are dramatically different. My laptop has to run work software even to a greater extent than my desktop. It also has to hold up to enormous physical abuse that my desktop does not have to. That's why my employer provides me with a hardened one. By the time I'm done with a laptop, I've usually polished the letters right off the keys. Whole different set of requirements.

If you have to buy a really expensive piece of hardware to get access to the software, and if that expensive piece of hardware still does not provide the features of cheaper (but otherwise the same microchips) hardware than doesn't have access to that software, then you are paying a premium to get that software. If Apple desired the same profit, and earned it only with MacOS software without subsidizing it with hardware markup, then maybe it would cost a thousand bucks. Maybe it would be worth it. Maybe not.

That is not hyperbole. I've quoted prices and specs. I've described performance using common tasks in this group. We've compared performance on those tasks. All that is fact, not hyperbole. The only hyperbole I've seen so far are those who say a $2000 computer is no more expensive than a $1000 computer, and a $300 computer is trash, and so on. I'm partly kicking the anthill, but I would like the ants to start getting specific like I've been doing.

(By the way, I would sorta like something in between the closed architecture of the MacOS and the Unix command line. No offense--that command line is for programmers and that's not how I make my living, even though I often write short programs to support an engineering activity. But I installed a Linux virtual machine on my HP because I keep thinking I want to play with it.)

Rick "eschewing the dominant paradigm" Denney

[photobymike]

My G5 has lightscribe drive external and fire wire for my Nikon scanner. I use several external 1 TB drives for data and backup 99 from newegg.com


Why would you want two monitors with a resolution of 2560 by 1600 pixels on there 30" monitor. This is an option on a MAC MINI. 2048x1536 is the max resolution on the video card you mentioned. Now find a monitor that will do that resolution. I looked all over for a hi res monitor... very hard to find at a decent price. Finally found a used 23" apple 1920x1200 display 150 dollars about 200 250 on ebay. Most PC monitors only go 1920x1080 hp monitors anyway

great discussions :-)

[photobymike]

MAC loves windows. some would say more reliable on a MAC than on a PC

[photobymike]

quote rdenny "By the way, I would sorta like something in between the closed architecture of the MacOS and the Unix command line. No offense--that command line is for programmers and that's not how I make my living, even though I often write short programs to support an engineering activity. But I installed a Linux virtual machine on my HP because I keep thinking I want to play with it.)"

You can operate and program a MAC from the command line i have done it many times. You can install and run different forms of unix on a MAC also with super computer results because of the 64 hardware architecture. Did it at work for a file server.

[sanking]

I have used extensively both PC and Macs, and have to admit that by far I prefer the seamless interface between hardware and software of the Mac OSX operating system.

But let's face it, even in the world of Mac there are vast differences of opinion. I am perfectly happy with my three year old 24" iMAC with 3.06 mhz processor, 10 gb of Ram and a 500mb hard drive. Some of the guys with newer Mac Pros with vastly more RAM and faster processor would probably make fun of my underpowered system, but it works for me.

But congratulations to Rick for the upgrade. I figure his old compute was equivalent to my very old 867 mhz G4 Power Mac, which I now dedicate to operating a couple of vintage scanners. Does a nice job for that application, but way, way too slow for processing large image files.

Sandy

[rdenney]

My G5 has lightscribe drive external and fire wire for my Nikon scanner. I use several external 1 TB drives for data and backup 99 from newegg.com


Why would you want two monitors with a resolution of 2560 by 1600 pixels on there 30" monitor. This is an option on a MAC MINI. 2048x1536 is the max resolution on the video card you mentioned. Now find a monitor that will do that resolution. I looked all over for a hi res monitor... very hard to find at a decent price. Finally found a used 23" apple 1920x1200 display 150 dollars about 200 250 on ebay. Most PC monitors only go 1920x1080 hp monitors anyway

great discussions :-)

By the time you add those external bits, the Mini isn't so sleek and the price is even higher, but you knew that.

The Radeon 6450 will support up to 2560x1600 when using either the HDMI or the DVI interface. The limit you mention is only when using the VGA cable.

Of course, I'd love to have two of those 30" Apple Cinema displays, but at $1800 each I'll have to pass. One of my monitors is the 1920x1080 HP monitor that came with the computer, but the other one is 1920x1200, similar to the same-size Apple display. Together they cost only a fraction of that big Cinema display. The bigger one is a 24" Dell U2410, which has an H-IPS panel, same as the Apple Cinema displays. I bought it new from an overstock supplier on ebay for $320--they normally retail for a little over $500. It has an excellent gamut and profiles nicely using my Gretag EyeOne2 system, as I would expect from any of the Apple displays. It also doesn't change its color balance with a change in viewing angle the way the TN panels do. (The HPs have TN panels--they are designed for gaming and watching movies, but they are fine for VueScan, Firefox, and most other applications. I park Photoshop on the Dell.)

Rick "who'd rather have two 24" displays than one 30" display, when looking for real-estate for tiling application windows" Denney

[rdenney]

I have used extensively both PC and Macs, and have to admit that by far I prefer the seamless interface between hardware and software of the Mac OSX operating system.

Most seem to. I was just pointing out that it's an expensive option. And I have to say that I'm pretty impressed with Windows 7 so far--I wonder if the comparisons reveal as much distinction if compared with the latest Windows system. (I have cussed at Windows many times and have no loyalty to it. But it has improved over the years.)

Thanks for understanding my motives. Many might be suffering with an old PC, thinking the only way they can enjoy working with big large-format scans is by spending two-plus kilobucks on an Apple with lots of RAM, when in fact they can buy a more modestly prices PC and still get real power. The great is the enemy of the good, and many might need a PC for reasons other than budget.

Most photographers would gain more from investing in their monitor and monitor calibration system in any case.

Rick "thanks" Denney