| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 95163 | 2008-11-26 09:16:00 | Been thinking of a mac | Nomad (952) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 723164 | 2008-11-26 09:16:00 | Hi, some of my photography friends have switched to macs, I am thinking about a new computer and they asked me to consider them . I haven't really looked at them but right now my understanding is: Mac Pro are $5,000 and up so out of the question . iMac only do Intel Core 2 Duo . Mac may be pretty good in the color for graphics . 1) Is Vista slower than Mac OS (whatever version it is) . 2) Is it correct that if I want a better computer, Quad Core CPU for PCs are pretty cheap and obtainable without the empty wallet feeling of the Mac Pro . If I get a affordable iMac I am pretty much restricted to Dual Core only and 4GB Ram . Basically all I use it for is photography . I would be dealing with up to 500MB TIF sizes because I intend on scanning film that is 4x5 inch physical size (large format) . Other than that I only use it for MS Office, music, video, Skype and MSN Messenger and of course email and the net . Cheers |
Nomad (952) | ||
| 723165 | 2008-11-26 09:24:00 | :groan: Metla, see what you started?! :eek: | Strommer (42) | ||
| 723166 | 2008-11-26 09:24:00 | You need a good graphics lad to answer that one. I will watch with interest. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 723167 | 2008-11-26 09:26:00 | 1) Leopard is much more stable and faster, but if you have a fast system vista runs ok. 2) Yes-quad cores are faster but if the applications you're running don't take advantage of all four cores you would be better off with a dual core(prob E8500) I wouldn't get an iMac, they're unbelievably over-priced, you make a system much faster for the same price. You'll probably want Vista 64bit too to take advantage of more than 3.25gb of RAM 4gb would probably be adequate. Macs and the apple monitors have better colour but their prices are still to expensive. $2200 bucks would prob get you a C2D system with a 4870 and a nice full HD 24" monitor(I have a benQ in mind) Cheers Blam |
Blam (54) | ||
| 723168 | 2008-11-26 09:32:00 | I wouldn't get an iMac, they're unbelievably over-priced, you make a system much faster for the same price. You'll probably want Vista 64bit too to take advantage of more than 3.25gb of RAM 4gb would probably be adequate. Macs and the apple monitors have better colour but their prices are still to expensive. My thoughts exactly :thumbs: |
jwil1 (65) | ||
| 723169 | 2008-11-26 09:36:00 | Can one say that Mac monitors are better than all the rest the world has to offer(colour wise),seems strange to me. | Cicero (40) | ||
| 723170 | 2008-11-26 09:38:00 | Probably not. I haven't used one long-term, but I would say that they're pretty average... ViewSonic and Samsung are better :) |
jwil1 (65) | ||
| 723171 | 2008-11-26 09:39:00 | Never noticed anything out of the ordinary in Mac monitors.... | qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 723172 | 2008-11-26 09:39:00 | Can one say that Mac monitors are better than all the rest the world has to offer(colour wise),seems strange to me. They aren't really the best in terms of features but in terms of value for money i.e. they make good monitors at a decent price point (atleast in the states) |
beeswax34 (63) | ||
| 723173 | 2008-11-26 09:48:00 | Mac Pro are $5,000 and up so out of the question. Note that with the Mac Pro, prices actually start at $3,869.00 (the default configuration on Apple's website is based on the cheapest dual processor quad core system, but it can be configured to use a single quad processor). I wouldn't get an iMac, they're unbelievably over-priced, you make a system much faster for the same price.I don't want to get into a Mac vs PC debate, other than to say that while Macs cost more than Windows boxes, they do offer a wide range of benefits. Whether those benefits justify the additional cost will depend on the importance each individual places on them. |
maccrazy (6741) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||