MS Vista or XP

[Gerry Harrison]

Hello,

I am in the market for a new computer and want it basically tuned for photo work..it may be a desktop ot note book still undecided. I am curious for those who have switched from MS XP to Vista how the new system is behaving...I have heard reports from my computer store that he has made alot of money off VISTA to date ( bugs ) and stick with XP for now. Any other suggestions for a photo based computer would be a big help also, eg. hard drive size , video card, memory....processor, usb types, yada yada yada. Oh ya I should have mentioned I shoot film at the moment ...but am on the way to digital scanning etc.

Thanks for your help gents.

[Rider]

Apple.

[eric black]

As someone who uses both Apple and Windows- I would say choose Apple if at all possible- if not, choose XP for now- Vista drivers are still a bit of an issue and until that is resolved (by time) you are better off with XP

[Wayne Crider]

I'm in a situation where I am going to setup my sisters new office computer network and it will be on XP. Vista is too young to get involved with.

If Photoshop'ing get extra ram, 20" monitor min, Core 2 Duo processor, and an independent Graphics card. Cruise over to PC Mag and read, read, read.

[Glenn Thoreson]

I've only had very limited experience with Vista. I hate it. I would stick with XP, which is very user friendly.

[Dave Parker]

Currently Vista is still in its first stages and there are a limited number of drivers for the various programs that us photographers use, so I would stick to XP which even with its quirks has just about anything you need to process and do photography with..

As far as Apple, I hear they are good sliced with a bit of sugar and cinnamon over them!:D

Dave

[Kirk Fry]

So first of all let me say I have no experience with Apple. In general you pay 2X what you would pay for a Windows solution for a fancy interface and cool looking hardware. If that is your thing, by all means go for it. Now that they are just wintel boxes I can't imagine that Photoshop is going to run any better on an apple than a window.
Processors are easy. Core 2. Even the cheap ones (E4300 and E6300) will over clock to 3 GHz. AMD is toast.

The OS is less easy. I have been running Vista since Beta I and now have ultimate running. I use Xp at work to do boring stuff like office. Xp feels faster because it does not do the windows fade thing that Vista does. Xp snaps, Vista fades. Photoshop CS3 beta seemed to run fine on Vista beta II. I have yet to crash Vista. Can one live without Vista for the next year or so, absolutely. Should one? No idea. If one has two boxes, get Vista home premium and play. Use the other box for production with Xp. Eventually you will know. Office 2007 is a trip and runs fine on Xp. They MOVED everything, no more menus, just ribbons. The softies say the new interface is faster (once you spend 6 months figuring out what they did with everything). Excel now has 16,000 columns and 1,000,000 rows. MS is making a big push into HDphoto to replace jpeg. Supposed to be way cool like ME. We will see. So far it is useless until output devices (cameras and scanners) actually output in the format. There is a photoshop plug in for it. For the other stuff get 4 Gig (8 is better) of main memory, a SATA hybrid drive when they come out, forget raid unless you do raid 1 for data protection and know what your are doing, any video card costing more than $100 that has dual outputs is fine (DirectX 10 is the next new thing, but I doubt you need it if you don't play 3D games) and some sort of a DVD writer. For monitors you WANT a 20 inch dual monitor set up. Laptops tend to be slow because their hard drives run bog slow and their processors are wimpy due to heat and power constraints.

K

[PViapiano]

I use XP Pro and Home...solid as a tank.

The poster above wrote about Vista effects (fade)...I'm sure there's a dialog to turn it off somewhere. XP has the same kind of effects...just turn it off and it'll speed up the whole experience.

[Jeff Conrad]

With 32-bit Windows (either XP or Vista), you're limited to 4 GB of physical RAM, and for Photoshop, you want every bit of that. Using the RAM for Photoshop is somewhat trickier than may be obvious, however.

The 4 GB virtual address space includes memory-mapped hardware such as video RAM, so My Computer|Properties typically reports only 3 ~ 3.5 GB of available RAM (this is a good reason not to get a video card with too much RAM--256 MB should be more than enough, and should also suffice if you eventually upgrade to Vista).

By default, 32-bit Windows limits the virtual address space of any process to 2 GB, leaving 2 GB for the system. Windows XP Professional allows a boot switch that can allocate up to 3 GB to the process (at the expense of the system). No mention is made of Win XP Home, implying that it won't recognize the switch, but I don't know of anyone who actually has confirmed that it doesn't work. Absent a confirmation that XP Home will take the boot switch, I'd go with Pro if you decide to use XP.

You avoid the 4 GB limit on physical memory with a 64-bit OS (XP or Vista), but you should verify driver availability before going this route. With a 64-bit OS, a 32-bit process (such as Photoshop), the virtual address space is still limited to 4 GB, but I think, under certain conditions, the memory-mapped hardware can be outside the 4 GB range, leaving more available to applications.

Windows memory allocation is described at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366778.aspx (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366778.aspx)

The boot switches are described at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/information/bootini.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/information/bootini.mspx)

I can describe adding the boot switch in more detail if anyone desires.

[Anthony Lewis]

I use both Mac and Windows. If you have a chance to change over - go to Mac now. It is no more expensive than an equivlent PC and is so much nicer to use.

[Michael Graves]

If you are installing onto a PC, you're best off with Linux. But if you have a masochistic bent and must have Microsoft, avoid the Vista for now. I've had it on a test PC for several months now and, while there are a few things about it I like, there is definitely more about it that I don't like. Several times, in the middle of writing a document, I've had the message "Updates Completed, Restarting Computer.", and it rebooted without asking or allowing me an opportunity to save. And yet my AU settings are set for Prompt. On top of that, Microcrap insists on "updating" my computer with software that hardly qualifies as a patch or OS update. The Genuine Notifications is an example of that. Stay away from Microsoft if you can.

[Kevin M Bourque]

There's no perfect solution, but XP SP2 is a pretty good operating system. I"d go with that if it's an option. Do get some kind of anti virus.

Let someone else work the bugs out of Vista (you can always spot the pioneers...they're the ones with the arrows in their backs).

I use Windows, OS X and Linux at work. Mac fans tend to be ardent supporters of their machines, almost like a religion. I find that Macs have irritating quirks just like Windows...the notion that "it just works" is just marketing, IMHO. They're fine machines; just don't expect that you're never going to curse at it. Let the flames begin.

Linux gets better all the time. I don't think its ready for prime time UNLESS you're a pretty good techie and you don't mind tinkering now and then. I've used all the latest releases and if you need to give it a try, SUSE 10.2 with the KDE desktop is pretty good (I like the KDE toolset better). There are other good ones.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I bought two new machines a couple months ago. I looked very closely at Vista, but it is too young right now. Requires major hardware - at least 2 gig ram to be realistic, and 4 gig for image processing, IMO. also, a lot of older hardware does not and maybe never will have drivers for Vista.

because of my desktop publishing, I came real close to buying a new Mac. If i had to choose between only Vista and Mac, for desktop publishing and image processing, i woudl of gone with a new Mac.

As for Linux, I installed it on an older machine (Ubuntu). I like it very much, but it does have a learning curve. It does have some major advantages over Vista, and even XP in some cases. My advice, is if you have an older machine you seldom use, do a clean install of Ubuntu and start teaching yourself, but keep your XP machine as your "major" workstation for now.

A year from now Vista might be more mature, and the way to go, but I a have "resurrected' some older hardware that I thought I would not ever be using again by installing Linux, so it's worth a serious look if you want to save some money. Another weird factor i have found is that it is - as of right now - easier to find linux drivers for some older hardware than it is Vista drivers. I do not know if this will hold true 6 months form now, but right now that's the fact.

IMO, bottom line - new machine - get XP for now. Second choice, get a Mac. Third choice, go linux, last choice, go Vista.

good luck
joe

[Rakesh Malik]

On top of that, Microcrap insists on "updating" my computer with software that hardly qualifies as a patch or OS update. The Genuine Notifications is an example of that. Stay away from Microsoft if you can.

This attitude is the reason that certain viruses had such widespread impact even though the flaws they exploited had been patched for nearly a month before the viruses hit the wires...

The new x86-based macs are pretty nice, though in the end they do end up costing more than Windows machines (at my previous company, the IT department found that configuring the developer machines cost nearly 2x as much if they were macs than if they were Dells in order to match the configurations).

OSX is a lot like Linux, but with a pretty nice GUI. Windows XP also has a pretty nice GUI though; even my mother who isn't significantly more tech-savvy than my cat rarely has a need to ask for help.

[JavaDuke]

If your budget is not as tight as mine - go for Mac. Some call it religion, while some call it The System - reliable, fast and has nice gui. It is true that Apple hardware is way overpriced though. But I'd rather pay extra $$$ for peace of mind. What you really pay for is basically the UNIX operationg system that runs Photoshop :) IMHO it worth some extra bucks. Believe me - I just lost my hard drive because of Windows glitch.

[Michael Graves]

Rakesh, I think you misunderstood my message. I don't fault updates that protect the OS from intrusion or other malicious intent. Genuine Notifications does not do that. It scans your hard disk checking all versions of your software looking for pirated software. Now, I'm not big on piracy. But I'm even less enthusiastic about having a manufacturer invite itself into my computer to see what software I'm running. And when I tell the OS to notify me before installing updates, then GOD DAMMIT NOTIFY ME!!. Where I work, we test each and every Microsoft update and patch before we allow it to be installed on our servers. They run proprietary software that we make a few billion dollars a year from. Many patches do not work in conjunction with all versions of software. We have over 75 patches listed in our incompatible list. If my engineers identify a problem with a patch, then that's probably one I don't want on my computer at home either.

[Rakesh Malik]

Rakesh, I think you misunderstood my message. I don't fault updates that protect the OS from intrusion or other malicious intent. Genuine Notifications does not do that. It scans your hard disk checking all versions of your software looking for pirated software. Now, I'm not big on piracy. But I'm even less enthusiastic about having a manufacturer invite itself into my computer to see what software I'm running.


I'd like to find out what's really going on under the hood...



And when I tell the OS to notify me before installing updates, then GOD DAMMIT NOTIFY ME!!.


That I agree with.



Where I work, we test each and every Microsoft update and patch before we allow it to be installed on our servers.


The last company I worked for that made that claim had their network taken down because they were so far behind on the patches. Several of my friends and I had a good laugh over that, because it was a large defense contractor.



They run proprietary software that we make a few billion dollars a year from. Many patches do not work in conjunction with all versions of software.


And it will get worse when MS stops bending over backwards to fix problems in other people's software... but that's not MS fault.



We have over 75 patches listed in our incompatible list. If my engineers identify a problem with a patch, then that's probably one I don't want on my computer at home either.

Other than a few applications that needed patching now and then, I haven't actually a problem with any of the software I've been running on my 3 XP boxes at home or with the XP boxes I've been using for work. I've also not had problems with viruses even though I don't have any virus scanners on my computers at home.

It took MS much longer than it should have to put it in place, but the testing process they have now is far more robust than what the vast majority of the companies out there have, so I'm no longer willing to trust the IT department to 2nd guess MS.

[Donald Qualls]

Unbuntu with GIMPShop. Did I mention if you build the machine yourself, you'll save $200 or so vs. the OEM version of Vista, or $100+ vs. OEM XP? That's enough to buy another RAM stick...

[Joseph O'Neil]

Other than a few applications that needed patching now and then, I haven't actually a problem with any of the software I've been running on my 3 XP boxes at home or with the XP boxes I've been using for work. I've also not had problems with viruses even though I don't have any virus scanners on my computers at home. .
-snip-

I have had issues with updates spoiling some of my software and even hardware setups. But to that effect, I have noticed two things. First, I use some speciality software that is not always in the mainstream. Takes longer for the small companies to catch up.

Secondly, and maybe it is just me and my natural sense of paranoia coupled with unrestricted conspiracy theroy syndrome, but it seems to me that any software product I use that has a direct MS compeditor - for example, I use Eudora or Thunderbird for e-mail, and i use Wordperfect business suite instead of the MS product, etc, and these "compeditors" seem to be the ones that suffer the first when some updates (not all) are automatically installed.

But then again, maybe the voices in my head are just saying the wrong things. :)

Back to the talk of linux (in my case Ubuntu), as much as I am learning to love and use linux, I would not reccomend to everyone to jump in cold. Maybe if you have somebody close by who understands linux and will come over for a couple of evenings or afternoons to get you started and running. But I would start learning it, if possible.

I see linux as the future for me. I have found in the past (starting my my old AT that had 2 meg ram and a 20 meg hard drive :) ) that for commercial & business operations, the usefull lifecycle of computer hardware & software is roughly 3 to 4 years before you are bascailly forced into an upgrade(s) of some kind. But linux changes that. My 6 year old laptop with linux fires up faster and runs programs like open office faster than my two year old laptop with XP and WordPerfect, even though the XP machine has twice the ram and is much faster processor.

If for business use I had to jump into a whole new O/S other than windows right at this moment, and have it work right out of the box, in my case, MAC would be the way to go. The learning curve and setup, IMO, is shorter than linux, but even that gap I think is closing.

joe

[Marko]

This attitude is the reason that certain viruses had such widespread impact even though the flaws they exploited had been patched for nearly a month before the viruses hit the wires...

Yes, I would agree with that. But when users start delaying system updates to avoid all the problems those updates may cause to the point that they compromise security, I would say there's a really BIG problem with the OS itself or with its manufacturer. Or both.

As a heavy dual Mac and PC user, I used to divide tasks between my Macs and my PCs, but I switched everything to the Mac over the past two years precisely because of what Michael talks about. I naturally have all my machines configured to look for updates at startup and to notify me before installing.

On the Mac, the system first gets a list of all the notifications and asks for your permission before the download and at the same time lets you choose which ones you want. Once the download is complete, it asks for authorization to actually install the downloads, installs them all in one swoop and only then restarts the computer. Only once, no matter how many individual pieces. Of course, it gives you a choice of restarting, quitting or continuing to do whatever you where at before the update.

Now, on the XP box, the downloads started being increasingly more frequent, more random and more time-consuming until the Genuine Notification came along. Then it became so slow, that I would start the computer up first in the morning and then went about my usual morning routines so I don't waste time waiting for GN to scan through everything. That's when I finally gave up on it and moved everything to the Mac. I keep two PCs now only for testing web pages I design and even that is mostly because of Microsoft's bugs and non-compliance with standards it participated in defining, this time in Internet Explorer.

Of course, my PC was relatively current when I first installed XP in order to run it at all. Any version of OSX will run on any G4 and newer, and even on most G3s. That's 1999 vintage we're talking about. And not just that, every version of OSX to date, and I had them all from the very first one, has increased the speed of the computer it ran on, regardless of its vintage!

This is actually one of the real strengths of OSX, as it will let you run whatever hardware you have as long as you find it fit. This significantly prolongs the useful life of equipment and stretches out the upgrade cycle.



The new x86-based macs are pretty nice, though in the end they do end up costing more than Windows machines (at my previous company, the IT department found that configuring the developer machines cost nearly 2x as much if they were macs than if they were Dells in order to match the configurations).

They don't really. Equally equipped PC will come up in the same ballpark as a Mac, provided that you use the same components. Real savings on a PC come from either omitting some options such as FireWire or BlueTooth and such that average users rarely use altogether or from using cheaper (read: lower quality) components instead.

But in a serious corporate environment, the price of hardware is just one part of the overall cost of the system and a relatively minor part at that. The biggest portion of overall cost is software and support. The reason why most IT departments consider Macs more expensive is that most if not all of them hold some Microsoft certification or the other and in order to properly support a Mac they need to hire a separate person. And in really serious corporations that can't afford to have any downtime, it means at least two people for redundancy.

On some levels, that mindset is very similar to web design: companies either pay for a full time designer or at least have a consultant on retainer OR they have one of their IT people, usually the Network Admin, slap something together in MS Front Page. It may be cheaper, but it shows very clearly.


OSX is a lot like Linux, but with a pretty nice GUI. Windows XP also has a pretty nice GUI though; even my mother who isn't significantly more tech-savvy than my cat rarely has a need to ask for help.

OSX is basically a BSD UNIX with NeXT STEP kernel and modified NeXT GUI.

[Rakesh Malik]

I have had issues with updates spoiling some of my software and even hardware setups. But to that effect, I have noticed two things. First, I use some speciality software that is not always in the mainstream. Takes longer for the small companies to catch up.


They also seem to screw around and break the rules more often... Maxis is a case in point.



Secondly, and maybe it is just me and my natural sense of paranoia coupled with unrestricted conspiracy theroy syndrome, but it seems to me that any software product I use that has a direct MS compeditor


I've never had any problems with OpenOffice, which is the only MS competitor that I use. I don't use Office myself, and the only other MS software I have is development tools and games. :)



I see linux as the future for me.


I keep hoping, and although it's not there yet, it is getting closer... especially with the maturation of Mono.

[Rakesh Malik]

Yes, I would agree with that. But when users start delaying system updates to avoid all the problems those updates may cause to the point that they compromise security, I would say there's a really BIG problem with the OS itself or with its manufacturer. Or both.


So you'd blame user stupidity on the OS vendor just because the OS vendor happens to be MS?



Now, on the XP box, the downloads started being increasingly more frequent, more random and more time-consuming until the Genuine Notification came along. Then it became so slow, that I would start the computer up first in the morning and then went about my usual morning routines so I don't waste time waiting for GN to scan through everything.


I find that amusing, because I have yet to have such an experience. I've had the occassional overnight reboot, but when it installs a patch that requires a reboot while I'm on the machine, I get a dialog with a countdown before it reboots. Most of the updates don't require reboots.



This is actually one of the real strengths of OSX, as it will let you run whatever hardware you have as long as you find it fit. This significantly prolongs the useful life of equipment and stretches out the upgrade cycle.


That's also pretty funny, because of the number of complaints there were about how slow OSX was on the older macs :)



They don't really. Equally equipped PC will come up in the same ballpark as a Mac, provided that you use the same components. Real savings on a PC come from either omitting some options such as FireWire or BlueTooth and such that average users rarely use altogether or from using cheaper (read: lower quality) components instead.


That's the theory... but it didn't pan out in practice.



But in a serious corporate environment, the price of hardware is just one part of the overall cost of the system and a relatively minor part at that. The biggest portion of overall cost is software and support. The reason why most IT departments consider Macs more expensive is that most if not all of them hold some Microsoft certification or the other and in order to properly support a Mac they need to hire a separate person. And in really serious corporations that can't afford to have any downtime, it means at least two people for redundancy.


And Apple isn't even remotely prepared to handle corporate support, which makes things much worse for the IT staff.



OSX is basically a BSD UNIX with NeXT STEP kernel and modified NeXT GUI.


I know. But if if you're familiar with Linux, it's a very easy transition, and the OS is still pretty nice, in spite of some design decisions which violate Apple's own UI design guidelines. I much prefer the OSX command line partly because of its similarity to Linux over the WinXP command line. But then, I like Bash.

[Michael Graves]

So you'd blame user stupidity on the OS vendor just because the OS vendor happens to be MS?

Delaying an update because your engineers are testing it for flaws hardly constitutes stupidity. On the contrary, it is the one sign of intelligence I see from IT departments that idolize Microsoft. Anyone who went through Service Pack 1 for XP knows what I'm talking about.



And Apple isn't even remotely prepared to handle corporate support, which makes things much worse for the IT staff.

On the contrary. I have to deal with Apple and Microsoft support on a regular basis. Apple is faster, more responsive, FAR less rude and gets the solution right on the first try much more often than Microsoft. And, maybe it's because of where I work, but I've never had them ask for proof of ownership.

[Marko]

Yes, I would agree with that. But when users start delaying system updates to avoid all the problems those updates may cause to the point that they compromise security, I would say there's a really BIG problem with the OS itself or with its manufacturer. Or both.


So you'd blame user stupidity on the OS vendor just because the OS vendor happens to be MS?

I really don't care who the vendor is, as long as the system it sells lets me do my work efficiently and does not stand in my way. After all, I was a pretty happy PC user since before Windows first came out, Microsoft didn't bother me, at least not much, until using their OS became too tedious.

No, what I am saying is that normal human reaction to tedium will be either procrastination and/or avoidance. It may be part of the job description to IT professionals, but it certainly isn't for the average Joe. Therefore, OS vendor should do its best to make their OS as transparent, easy to use and safe at the same time as possible.

Microsoft is, in my opinion and apparently that of many others, increasingly failing on those criteria with each new, supposedly "more robust and safe" version of Windows it brings to market. It is this failure invites that natural human reaction I mentioned. Or to be fair, it is failing on those points much more than other OS vendors do.

Apple, on the other hand, increasingly delivers on those very points with each new version of the OSX it brings to market while making it even easier and more fun to use. And I am not saying that because I am tied to Apple in any way - I am not.

I have stopped using Windows for anything important and I have switched over to Mac precisely because of the differences I mentioned (OK, I like Apple's design too, but that was secondary). I am very well aware that those differences may indeed be more perceptual than real, but the onus is still on vendors to make or break that perception.


This is actually one of the real strengths of OSX, as it will let you run whatever hardware you have as long as you find it fit. This significantly prolongs the useful life of equipment and stretches out the upgrade cycle.


That's also pretty funny, because of the number of complaints there were about how slow OSX was on the older macs :)

I didn't say running the latest version of OSX on a 1999 G3 was fast, I said it was possible. Try running Vista on a 1999 Pentium III 500 MHz with a 128 MB of RAM. Hell, forget Vista, try running XP on that box...

;)


And Apple isn't even remotely prepared to handle corporate support, which makes things much worse for the IT staff.

I've been working in some sort of publishing and/or media most of my working life and therefore in a mixed PC/Mac environment by definition, and I have never seen anything that would substantiate this statement. But then again, we've always had well qualified IT personnel in-house.

My point was that most IT people who make statements like this are Microsoft-certified and usually less than current on Macs. It is only natural that Mac would be a bigger problem for them because of that bias.

But my general point was that, at least in my experience Macs require less support and provide more stability and durability. I see most of that difference as due to the operating system and less to the hardware differences, but it sufficiently pronounced that it makes sense paying more for the hardware, because the combination will last longer and cost less in the long run than the alternative.

Even now that I am on my own and out of the corporate world, this notion still holds true. Actually, make that read: especially now.


I know. But if if you're familiar with Linux, it's a very easy transition, and the OS is still pretty nice, in spite of some design decisions which violate Apple's own UI design guidelines. I much prefer the OSX command line partly because of its similarity to Linux over the WinXP command line. But then, I like Bash.

We can argue the hardware and software ad nauseam, but when it comes to personal preferences and tastes, each of us is absolutely right, there is no discussion there.

:)

[Dave Parker]

Actually as I remember it, this thread was asking questions about "Vista" or "XP" Mac or Linux was never part of the question, if you are choosing between Vista or XP, then go XP, more stable and more support at this time, let the Apple vs. Windows crowd go on with their my is better than yours! if these are the two systems to choose from, then XP is the winner at this point in time.

Dave

:D

[Marko]

Actually as I remember it, this thread was asking questions about "Vista" or "XP" Mac or Linux was never part of the question, if you are choosing between Vista or XP, then go XP, more stable and more support at this time, let the Apple vs. Windows crowd go on with their my is better than yours! if these are the two systems to choose from, then XP is the winner at this point in time.

Dave

:D

I agree, Dave, XP feels better than Vista at this point. However, thread originator also said this:


Any other suggestions for a photo based computer would be a big help

To which several of us responded by recommending Macs as the photo-oriented computer, not just because we consider the OSX better and more stable, but primarily for its RAM management and drivers. Which makes me realize that nobody has yet mentioned better Color management as well.

Once that conversation gets going, what follows is usually predictable. :D

[Dave Parker]

Once that conversation gets going, what follows is usually predictable. :D

Marko,

Not only predictable, but obligatory!!

LOL

Dave

[Rakesh Malik]

Delaying an update because your engineers are testing it for flaws hardly constitutes stupidity. On the contrary, it is the one sign of intelligence I see from IT departments that idolize Microsoft. Anyone who went through Service Pack 1 for XP knows what I'm talking about.


I went through it... it was among the most painless updates I've ever had to deal with from MS. From my experience, XP was a HUGE improvement over previous MS products. Then again, I also switched on the automatic updates, so it rarely interfered with my work, since it downloaded the updates in the background, and has lately require fewer updates than win2K and earlier OS versions did.



On the contrary. I have to deal with Apple and Microsoft support on a regular basis. Apple is faster, more responsive, FAR less rude and gets the solution right on the first try much more often than Microsoft. And, maybe it's because of where I work, but I've never had them ask for proof of ownership.

That's also funny, based on the number of times I read/hear about people having exactly the opposite experience. It just goes to show that there's no such thing as a perfect computer, and based on people's feedback, Apple's customer service is either the absolute best or the absolute worst in the industry, depending on who you talk to, so there's no perfect computer company, either.

[Rakesh Malik]

I really don't care who the vendor is, as long as the system it sells lets me do my work efficiently and does not stand in my way.


That sums up my experience with XP. I hated MS' products before that, because they were such a pain in the a$$.



No, what I am saying is that normal human reaction to tedium will be either procrastination and/or avoidance. It may be part of the job description to IT professionals, but it certainly isn't for the average Joe. Therefore, OS vendor should do its best to make their OS as transparent, easy to use and safe at the same time as possible.


Right....



Microsoft is, in my opinion and apparently that of many others, increasingly failing on those criteria with each new, supposedly "more robust and safe" version of Windows it brings to market. It is this failure invites that natural human reaction I mentioned. Or to be fair, it is failing on those points much more than other OS vendors do.


You're in the minority.



Apple, on the other hand, increasingly delivers on those very points with each new version of the OSX it brings to market while making it even easier and more fun to use. And I am not saying that because I am tied to Apple in any way - I am not.


Apple succeeded in delivering on most of those by staying small. Their "robust and safe" claims are predicated largely on not having a large enough presence to be a target for malware and hackers.



I am very well aware that those differences may indeed be more perceptual than real, but the onus is still on vendors to make or break that perception.


The design part is purely a matter of opinion (that I happen to agree with), but I also agree about that last part, particularly since it's clearly a perceptual, as the reality is so obviously the opposite.



I didn't say running the latest version of OSX on a 1999 G3 was fast, I said it was possible. Try running Vista on a 1999 Pentium III 500 MHz with a 128 MB of RAM. Hell, forget Vista, try running XP on that box...


I wouldn't even know where to FIND a machine that old and slow :)



My point was that most IT people who make statements like this are Microsoft-certified and usually less than current on Macs. It is only natural that Mac would be a bigger problem for them because of that bias.


I've heard that claim often myself. I haven't found any evidence to back it up, and quite a bit to refute it so far, particularly after working with several mac-savvy folks who themselves pointed out Apple's problems with corporate support...



But my general point was that, at least in my experience Macs require less support and provide more stability and durability. I see most of that difference as due to the operating system and less to the hardware differences, but it sufficiently pronounced that it makes sense paying more for the hardware, because the combination will last longer and cost less in the long run than the alternative.


It lasts longer because it takes longer for Apple to update it ;)



We can argue the hardware and software ad nauseam, but when it comes to personal preferences and tastes, each of us is absolutely right, there is no discussion there.


True... but the main reason that I won't ever switch to macs is that I have software that I can't transfer. I might, however, ADD a mac to my setup eventually, because I do like the OS. And since they don't bother trying to market to corporate markets, their Xeon machines cost a lot less than Dell's. If you're going to buy 40 of them, getting a Dell makes sense for the support (Dell wouldn't be MY first choice, but most companies get special deals from them), Apple's support is fine for just one or two.

[Marko]

You know, I'm happy that you're happy with what you have. I'm even happier that I don't have to have that too... :)

But that's beside the point here, I'm afraid. We seem to differ so much that there's not much point keeping up with this. And besides, we've already gone way OT here anyway, so let's call it a day.

[Rakesh Malik]

You know, I'm happy that you're happy with what you have. I'm even happier that I don't have to have that too... :)

But that's beside the point here, I'm afraid. We seem to differ so much that there's not much point keeping up with this. And besides, we've already gone way OT here anyway, so let's call it a day.

Works for me. And who knows... maybe in another few years, we'll all be using Linux anyway ;)

[Brian Ellis]

I keep reading of various problems with both Vista and Photoshop CS3 in other photography forums. I wouldn't get either right now. But a couple friends have had a lot of trouble even finding a computer that isn't loaded with Vista.

[Brian Ellis]

Sorry, in deference to the Macophiles here I shouldn't have said "trouble even finding a computer that isn't locaded with Vista." I should have said "trouble even finding a PC that isn't loaded with Vista."

[stubbsk]

You could always buy a vista pc and install xp later or have a dual boot. You could do the same on a new mac with a couple of OSs. I'm using vista on a pc and prefer it to using macs. Vista is really amazing and is almost in league with the latest fine tuned versions of xp. I have however had trouble with raw thumbnails, I'm sure this will be fixed soon as the codecs arrived a lot faster then I had anticipated in the first place.

Vista should out perform xp on identical machines due to it's new memory management and the way it works with the cpu. All available ram is used to deliver the best performance whatever program is operating.

The security and backup/restore features are very good in vista, the search features are very good and the folder explorer works better then xp and mac with options to choose from many thumbnail sizes and previews.

If you use an independent raw explorer like lightroom then I would suggest vista but if you rely on integrated raw support then stick with xp but this depends on your use of raw. The nikon raw codec is the only problem I have had. Any clash of compatibility seams to be fixed with a quick switch of the aero theme to the normal theme, nothing at all a problem.