here we go again...

You all have good points. I knew I'd fire up a conversation. :D

- something that occurred to me this morning while searching monster.com....

*typically* if a graphics firm, ad firm, design house, print shop, etc. is successful, and they're truly serious about their work, their ads all have "macintosh experience a must" - the smaller, mom & pop copy shops are all "CorelDraw, PageMaker and airbrush skills needed."

While I'm sure this is directly attributable to costs, you can see the return on the macintosh investment is clear as day. At least it is in this city. Up-time spells productivity, which spells profits. 'nuff said.

I guess the moral of the story in this industry is: You get what you pay for, whether it's a cheap ass hand-me-down conglomeration PC or a Silicon Graphics PC or a mac-daddy G4.

Media industries are heavily entrenched in using Apple computers. It was originally done this way because of Apple's start as an easier to use, gui driven OS. Now all computer OSes are easy to use gui driven products. Though after getting all the important production software completed on the macintosh OS, there has been very slow progress in doing the same for the now fully matured Windows market that now has a better operating kernel than Mac OSX (yes, the NT kernel is very stable). This may always be the case, or at least as long as Apple stays in business. Apple is certainly getting into more and more competitive trouble now that Motorola can't supply better/faster cpus than they used to. And the fishing out to Intel for 64-bit CISC based processors as their future platform only further blurs the lines between Apple computers and cheaper Windows based pcs.

Within the next 5-10 years, computers that will be running on Intel Itanium or AMD based 64-bit cpus will have the option of running whatever Apple, Linux, or Microsoft OS is available at that time. Exactly what OS offers more will be the only difference. Performance issues will be nil, and nobody will ever be able to argue such points again. Motorola and their G4 RISC based cpu is a dying breed of computing simply because they can no longer keep up with competition. Intel has even begun to stop with promoting megahertz as the level for performance, because they too know that the future of computers lies in lower-mhz rated 64-bit cpus.

Media industries are heavily entrenched in using Apple computers. It was originally done this way because of Apple's start as an easier to use, gui driven OS. Now all computer OSes are easy to use gui driven products. Though after getting all the important production software completed on the macintosh OS, there has been very slow progress in doing the same for the now fully matured Windows market that now has a better operating kernel than Mac OSX

yep. I couldn't agree with you more about the history of the industry, MrBogus. - these are the same reasons I can fix 99% of my Mac problems in ten minutes or less, should something come up. However, it's also the same reasons some (most?) graphics professionals can't - and won't - fix windows machines. WE AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THEM. Nor do we have the patience/mentality to screw with the internal parts of a computer. That's what employs a whole different genre of computer geeks: the IT sector thrives from people thinking exactly like myself and deker do:

I don't care what parts are in my TV... as long as it works...

I ask this to emplolyers: If I'm your designer, why am I not designing? My answer(s): maybe it's because I'm looking for drivers for my obsolete 6 yr old scanner, or because I'm emailing proofs to people through my yahoo account because my outlook doesn't work, nor does my broken inkjet proofer, or maybe it's because I'm in a chat forum waiting for my photoshop files to open.....???

well once again, I hate these debates, but I think I'm going to buy a mac down the road to go along with my PC, sad to hear your having problems with your PC, because I never do. I have a thing agains Pentuim too but thats another argument I dont want to start up.

Mac User + multiHundreds of MB composites over many layers + speedy performance in 16 bit/channel + not the latest and greatest and most tricked out system....

You MUST investigate LivePicture 2.6.1...I just got my copy yesterday.... This software, though a little outdated, does stuff Photoshop can't touch, and faster...used to cost US$3000+. This is the only company, as far as I know, that's selling it in North America. If you wanna know more, post back here and I'll clue you up. Sorry...Mac-only....

I'm just beginning to dig into LivePicture, and as a long-time Photoshop user, I'm floored...the speed is freakin' jaw-dropping fast...and my hardware isn't what you'd call the latest, greatest and fully maxed out. This software is what real pro high-end fine photographers use because of it's 16bit capabilities and speed, and I finally got a copy of it.

You have no idea how cool this is.....

Just to keep this flame going here....

Mac have their own share of problems, so why do people continually go on about how a mac never has any?

Every mac owner and user I have met has had some major issues come up at some point. The solution was to send it to a shop. The end cost was enough to buy myself one of those new Radeon cards and another stick of Ram.... so there! hehe. If you want details then let me know. Macs have the same problems as pc's; they are both computers. But.... if you read my post earlier you will see that one thing going for macs is how they handle hardware... not how they do it so much, but how the company deals with getting compatible parts and good ones. But that means you pay for it. So why not go out and buy a pc at that same price? You wouldnt be complaining about speed and processing power and ram and this and that if you had a brand new pc for at least 2k$.... I still use my p3 I spent 2,500$ on when it came out (its been a few years). It runs like a charm.

Mac definitely has problems, marble. I apologize if my rant came off saying that they don't. - the difference is: I can fix most of them without calling for help.

I do have one particular instance to share where I had to take my G3 into the shop - but that's because I tried to install OSX without doing my homework first. Somehow, it wouldn't read my CD-ROM drive, so I couldn't reinstall anything, including OS 9! It sucked!

but, if I were going to drop 2,000 dollars... I'd buy this:

http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail.asp?dpno=587310

Hehe.... no problem at all. I just love Mac versus PC debates, hehe.

U23, does that software work on OSX?

Deker...

No, I'm almost positive it doesn't run under OS X, since development for LivePicture stopped in 1999. I'm telling you, though, for the price, you can't beat it, because, like I said, it does things in 16-bit/channel color that Photoshop can't, and because of the proprietary IVUE image format, is able to do it REALLY fast. If you want to learn more about it you can have a look at Julian Calverley's website. He's a Brit photographer who hosts a LivePicture discussion group on his site. (Side note...his portfolio uses Flash nicely...very classy and unobtrusive)

LivePicture is THE ONE app that would make it worth your while to boot into the Mac Classic OS. LivePicture is presently owned by Roxio, and they've fukkin' buried it...I REALLY hope someone grabs it up and develops it further.

EDIT: I just had another look through some of the LP discussion group archive...LP just might run under OS X after all...I can't tell yet whether these folks are talking about whether it runs natively, or if it's under Classic emulation. I don't yet run OS X, so it's of no concern to me at this point.