Trying to decide.

[troublechuter1]

Misc. question: My wife and I have been in about 3 or 4 "Mac Stores." In each store, she tried to view the trailer of a movie she'd like to see. But, when it comes up and plays, it seems to start okay, but then gets majorly pixelated: large blocks and the video slows to a crawl, then stops. This has happened on a number of different machines, mostly Powerbooks and iMacs (either G4 or G5). This is quite disheartening for someone possibly looking to purchase a Mac. Any thoughts as to why this might be happening? (I can view the trailer at home on my P4 just fine.)

[Soltaris]

Macs do have some disadvantages to consider. One of the most important ones is obsolescence. Many applications only work with the newer releases of the operating system. Yet the newer versions of the operating system won't run on hardware that's very old. This creates a catch-22.

So if you buy a new Mac today chances are that in 3 or 4 years it won't be able to run the most current operating system. And without the newer operating system you'll no longer be able to run the newest upgrades to all your favorite software.

By contrast most software for the PC is still compatible with Windows 98 and a few of the latest titles will still run on Windows 95! Not only that but if you really have to have Windows XP you'll find that with a simple memory upgrade you can reliably install it on computers that are already 8 years old and many applications built 5 years from now will still run on it. Plus there's the fact that Microsoft has shown willingness to provide new features for FREE such as the SP2 firewall, IE download monitoring, IE add-on manager, Attachment manager, Security Center, Bluetooth, Hi-Mat, WPA wireless security, Smart Card Cryptography support, Windows Media Connect, and new versions of media player, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Microsoft Instant Messenger, and Windows Media Player. If you have Media Center Edition you also get free even more features, such as multiple tuners, ATSC HDTV tuners, DVB-T digital radio, DVD changers, away mode, enhanced DVD burning, and more. Plus all versions of Windows XP are scheduled to receive another major update (service pack 3) shortly after Windows Vista ships.

I haven't followed apple too closely but I don't believe they've given that many features for free. Especially if you only count upgrades which are usable on operating systems well over 4 years old.

There's also a cost factor. To stay current with the latest Windows you only need to upgrade every 3-5 years. On a Mac, Apple leaches more money out of you every single year. Also you can get big discounts on Windows - for example students and teachers can purchase Windows XP for only $15 depending on the campus.

So if you're worried about cost, or how fast your computer becomes obsolete, you might want to go with a PC running Windows.

Edit: Some people might mention there are "hidden" costs. Windows doesn't come with the most robust utilities because Microsoft doesn't want to stiffle innovation. For example sound recorder and MSPaint are very basic. But the truth is that there are VERY nice replacements you can find for free! Check out programs such as Audacity, Picassa 2, or Firefox. And replacements you don't get free might come as part of another bundle you already have - for example Nero 7 also includes a very nice file backup program (capable of performing a complete system restore and supports various external media), a DVD-Video decoder, AVC/AAC/MP4 support, the famous Nero Recode application, and other cool utilities.

As for working with video both platforms are very capable. But I really like avisynth, vfapi, dvdshrink, and others.

[lordsmurf]

To combat this problem, OS X can run a "virtual machine" version of OS9, but it's really sort of dodgy, at least with something like FCP or DVDSP. When Intel hardware hits, I would expect this to stop altogether. Apple has never cared much for backwards compatible machines. With each generation OS and hardware, previous Mac users are left in the dark or forced to fork over fistfuls of dollars. Unless you're perfectly happy with what you are already using.

[ffooky]

I haven't followed apple too closely

Hence your stream of 100% primo bull's excrement. :P

[Soltaris]

Actually i didn't cover running old software on a new OS In my 3rd paragraph I mentioned the opposite - that new (Windows) software will run on an older version of Windows.

But your words ring true nonetheless- backwards compatibility is something the Mac has a harder time with.

[Soltaris]

Fooky, your statement has no merit. What part do you disagree with? Do you disagree with everything? For example, you don't think Apple releases a new version of OSX (that you have to pay for if you want to stay current) just about every year?

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X and learn something. If you're actually that ignorant of Macs why even post on this thread?

BTW I do have some friends that have owned Macs for years. All of them agree these are valid limitations that the Mac has had, and still has to this day. I described common complaints I hear all the time from real people who use Apple's products. These people have the money to keep up and are willing to spend their cash on the product they prefer. There's nothing wrong with that. But I feel it's something someone should be aware of before they decide to purchase a Mac.

[ffooky]

Until my kids broke the screen, my 6-year old G3 iMac was running happily on the latest version of Tiger and had run more quickly on each version of OS X since the first.

Your statement, "if you buy a new Mac today chances are that in 3 or 4 years it won't be able to run the most current operating system", is probably baseless and if you buy an Intel Mac today, almost certainly so.

"Microsoft has shown willingness to provide new features for FREE such as the SP2 firewall, IE download monitoring, IE add-on manager, Attachment manager, Security Center, Bluetooth, Hi-Mat, WPA wireless security, Smart Card Cryptography support, Windows Media Connect, and new versions of media player, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Microsoft Instant Messenger, and Windows Media Player"

OS X ships with a firewall, a download manager as a part of Safari, Bluetooth, QuickTime Player, Safari, Mail and iChat. I have no idea what some of the things that Microsoft so beneficently provides are but I doubt they're likely to be deal breakers for someone looking for a machine for video work. The fact that you even reel off these applications as some sort of proof of the superiority of a vanilla Windows installation over an OS X one just makes it abundantly obvious that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Give me Smart Card Cryptography support or give me death !

"Windows doesn't come with the most robust utilities because Microsoft doesn't want to stiffle innovation". I'm going to be quoting that beauty for years to come.

Not that it's relevant but Audacity and Firefox run merrily on OS X and if you want to bring third-party applications into the frame, Toast is largely analogous to Nero, though I'm sure each has some features that the other doesn't.

[terryj]

Macs do have some disadvantages to consider.

GOD! I wish this thread would die ALREADY!
GEEZ! GOSH!

*sigh*
However the case, this poster is unfortuantely wrong.

Four quick points and hopefully we can close shop on this thread:

1.

Many applications only work with the newer releases of the operating system. Yet the newer versions of the operating system won't run on hardware that's very old.

This has been disproven, time and time again. OS or App, most apps that
are not tied to specific hardware functions run back/forth on a mac from
1999 or a mac in 2006. Itunes 6 runs on an iMac G3 400mhz machine
just as well as it does on Powermac DC G5. Will FCP,
DVDSP, or MOTION? no, becasue these are tied to altivec processors,
(HARDWARE) so they aren't backwards compatible.

Apple makes tons of software that are forwards/backwards compatible,
as does Adobe, M$, and Macromedia.

2.

So if you buy a new Mac today chances are that in 3 or 4 years it won't be able to run the most current operating system. And without the newer operating system you'll no longer be able to run the newest upgrades to all your favorite software.

Again false. The true answer is, if your software was HARDWARE specific, then yes, you will have a problem going forward and will need to upgrade.
But if you software is the bare basic essential mac supplied software,
then you will be fine.

I am currently running a 3 yr old mac, a PM MDD Dual 1ghz. It has the
latest OS ( Tiger 10.4.3) but I am running all the software I still
had as of 2003-2004. DVDSP 3, FCP 4.5, Photoshop CS, MS Word X,
Freehand 10, Graphic Converter 4.43, Illustrator 10,
Audio Hijack Pro, Amadeus II, all run fine as always.
Apple patched its own FREE bundled apps with the OS upgrade, so iTunes,
iPhoto, iMovie, Garageband work fine. Safari, Mail work fine.

If I buy another Mac, then my HARDWARE specific apps will need to be upgraded, but otherwise I am fine where I'm at, and I'm not obsolete.
Becasue to be obsolete, I would have to be non productive.
Last I looked, I CERTAINLY wasn't that.

3.

Plus there's the fact that Microsoft has shown willingness to provide new features for FREE

Apple has provided many new features for free:

Bluetooth (an apple first)

FW/iLink/1394 Support Native (an Apple First)

Built in Airport/802.11g in its notebooks (an Apple first)

SATA HDS, Large NOTEBOOK HDs, DVD BURNERS Standard

built in Firewall, File Sharing, Printer Sharing, Security features, file encryption with Master Vault, native driver support for a gazillion printers
AND monitors, and top notch sound card capabiliites, without needing
the "have Disc" feature.

Disc Management Utilites that work ( an Apple first)

Linux Built in Backbone/Foundation ( an Apple innovation)

A Productivity suite compatible with Windows (Appleworks)

A robust Graphic App that also handles PDFs natively, including creation
(Preview)

Browser and Mail software ( Safari, Mail) that intergrate and download,
and heck even install software ( with connectivity to Disc Imager)

Built in robust Photo Editing Software, Movie Creation Software, Music Making software, Music Cataloging software ( iLife suite)

And a heck of a backbone architecture to handle all the various media types both audio and video robustly ( Quicktime)


4.

There's also a cost factor. To stay current with the latest Windows you only need to upgrade every 3-5 years. On a Mac, Apple leaches more money out of you every single year.

Again, False. To keep current on Hardware on a PC, you need to buy
and spend a LOT of money UP FRONT. What you get under the hood of
today's imac, yesterdays imac, 3yrs ago's iMac will server you well
for 3-5 years. ( My own mac is 3 years old, and will serve me at least another 3 to 4 years, or until my Hardware/Software needs change).

When's the last time you saw a HP pavilion user
or a Compaq Xmas special user go:
"man, I can do everything I want on this machine!"

I hear this more often than not in my shop:

A PC user will ask me how they can:

* Connect a FW DV Camera to their $499 X-Mas PC
* Watch a DVD
* Burn a DVD
* Edit a Movie file/download & convert /Manage a Photo library/edit Photos

& my answer is more often than not: "You can't, not with that setup."

Windows OS costs $299, ( not that crippled HOME Edition crap)
and then has a gazillion patches you have to download the first
time you turn it on. A mac comes BUNDLED with it's OS,
and is ready to go as is once installed.

now, can we put this to rest......?

[AntnyMD]

You people clearly need ONE thread within which to compare contrast attack bash one another. I'm tired of every new thread devolving into the Mac versus Windows gibberish.

I know the two camps love to joust. Please do it in roped-off, approved arena.

[ipdave]

SANS.ORG: Handler's Diary February 24th 2006


OS X is clearly on the radar of exploit-developers.
Published: 2006-02-24,
Last Updated: 2006-02-24 23:49:44 UTC by Kevin Liston (Version: 1)

Love it or hate it, OS X users need to exercise increased vigilance.

Soon, even your beloved little Mac laptop will be spending its spare CPU cycles sending out advertisements for Viagra and Cialis.

The recent news of these vulnerabilities in the OS is getting plenty of attention. Some would argue that things are being blown out of proportion. I think there is some lazy journalism, and sensationalism afoot. Yet, like any FUD-storm there is usually some kernel of truth. In this case, this kernel is not so small and insignificant.

A quick review of some critical points:

The OS X Finder issue allows arbitrary execution of code.
There exists proof-of-concept code that demonstrates this vulnerability.
There exists easy-to-use tools in the wild to actively exploit this vulnerability.

The Bluetooth Directory traversal vulnerability (Bugtraq ID 13491) allows an attacker to access arbitrary files on the system.
There exists malicious code in the wild that exploits this (OSX.Inqtana.A –no CME available)

OS X has a disparity of controls when it comes to file headers and file icons.
This was exploited by OSX.Leap.A


Secure or Easy-to-Use: Pick one. "Security is a compromise" is a well-known axiom. In an effort to use as little hype as possible I only suggest that now is the time for Mac users to seriously consider anti-virus, personal firewalls, and safe browsing habits. It is the time for Mac sysadmins to develop strong patch management policies. This likely means that a Mac is no longer the no-brainer-choice for what computer to get for your parents.

It would also be simply splendid if Jobs would release his patch clusters on any day other than MS Tuesday.


... btw, my XP-SP2 system only needs rebooting when I run stupid software like file sharing, due to bad memory management. Kind of like my old Amiga did due to stupid programmers not following good programming etiquette. Done with memory, let it GO! Crashes in XP? Not in a year or so.

... and my 2003 server has not been rebooted for months now.

[Soltaris]

OS X ships with a firewall, a download manager as a part of Safari, Bluetooth, QuickTime Player, Safari, Mail and iChat.

My point is that Microsoft continually provides their customers a constant stream of new utilities and features. Even if the OS you paid for didn't originally come with them, Microsoft often allows you to download new features (not just bug fixes or drivers) without having to purchase upgrades or pay any more money. In a nutshell, Microsoft has a proven track record of giving you back more than what you originally paid for. There are very few software companies that I know of that offer this much after-market product support.

Again false. The true answer is, if your software was HARDWARE specific, then yes, you will have a problem going forward and will need to upgrade.

So why then does Dreamweaver 8 require 10.3 or higher? Why does Adobe Creative Suite 2 require 10.2.8 or later? One of my friends is a web developer and is absolutely sick that many Mac apps he wants to run are like this. It's bugging him so much that he's about ready to purchase a PC.

Apple patched its own FREE bundled apps with the OS upgrade, so iTunes,
iPhoto, iMovie, Garageband work fine. Safari, Mail work fine.

Are you saying all these features are free even to people running 10.0 and do not wish to purchase an OS upgrade? E.g. can they download and run the latest iPhoto or iMovie without spending money to upgrade their OS? I ask, because in the example I gave, all the upgrades mentioned are completely free to anyone owning an original (2001) version of Windows XP.

Apple has provided many new features for free:

Are you saying all of the new features you named are truely free and would not require a paid upgrade to the OS? Will they work all the way back at least to 10.0?

Again, False. To keep current on Hardware on a PC, you need to buy
and spend a LOT of money UP FRONT.

How do you figure? When you buy a $299 computer from Dell it already includes the OS. They can sell entire systems that cheap because OEM's get a substantial discount on Windows and in reality the consumer doesn't pay hardly anything for a bundled OS. And there are plenty of ways you can get a steeply discounted price for a legitimate copy of Windows XP (I even mentioned one way you can get it for $15). Plus the full MSRP of a full version of Windows Vista is said to be $99 when it ships. So if you bought Windows XP back in 2001 you got free service packs through 2006 (service pack 3 should be available later this year) and then you can buy Vista for $99 even if you pay full MSRP. That's less than $20 / year to always have had the most current version of the operating system. By contrast, Macs have had 4 upgrades you had to pay for (5 if you count the upcoming Leopard) if you kept your OS at the current version in that same timeframe and the total cost is much, much higher.

Not that it's relevant but Audacity and Firefox run merrily on OS X and if you want to bring third-party applications into the frame

My point is that many people find some of the bundled utilities that come with Windows to be inadequate. I assumed the Mac already bundled good software (but from your reaction perhaps I was wrong). In either case, I wanted to point out that Windows users can get very high quality substitutes for free. You don't have to fear going broke to have great operating system utilities.[/quote]

----------------------

Edit: I want to make it clear that i'm not out to bash the Mac. Both platforms are great for video (as I stated previously). But you have to realise that, just like everything else, Macs have both good and bad points. Macs are great at a lot of things but they are not the best at everything

I wanted to point out two common concerns that people I spoke with have with Macs:

1) Cost. Hardware and initial cost was mentioned by someone else in this thread. I wanted to take this a step further and by including continued cost of operation over a period of 4-5 years. I gave examples how major service releases of Windows XP have been free to those already owning the operating system and provide features you'd expect most vendors to require a paid upgrade to receive. I also described 2 specific methods you can obtain Windows XP at steeply reduced prices, and how Windows Vista's MSRP is expected to be much lower than Microsoft's previous operating systems. In addition I abaded fears of possible hidden costs to provide Windows similar functionality to what you get standard with the Mac.

2) Quick obsolecence. I gave specific examples with products from Adobe and Macromedia. Both of these products are able to run on most 8 year old PCs provided they're running a version of windows that is up to 6 years old. Yet on the Mac they require a G4 or G5 running relatively new versions of the OS. Many Mac owners would have to upgrade their OS and possibly their entire computer. Quite a few Mac owners have expressed dissatisfaction about this type of thing to me.

I also brought up and addressed a common complaint about Windows.

1) Many people feel that the utilities included with the OS are sub-par. Critisism is often directed at Internet Explorer, MSPaint, Windows Picture and Fax Viewer, Sound Recorder, and others. Mac users likely have better standard utilities here. But Windows users need not fear because there are some very high quality replacements that are completely free. I gave specific examples of utilities to improve Windows in my above post.

I'm very sorry some have seen this as bashing. That was never my intent. Hopefully people can realize there is more than one viable platform. And for the most part it just breaks down to personal preference.

[troublechuter1]

I priced out the options that I would want on a Macbook Pro. By the time I add in a couple of things, I may be looking at about $3500-$3800. I know that, for some, long threads like this are tedious--made even more tedious by a certain amount of basically unavoidable Mac. vs. PC discussion. In the first line of my first post, I had stated that I didn't really want to get into all of that that has been rehashed many times. (In fact, I posted here because everywhere else I looked was much much more into the back-and-forth-is-this-really-going-anywhere discussion.)

But, at the same time, it makes a lot of sense to me to ask lots of questions before I get in way over my head--again, to the tune of $3500-$3800. (And that doesn't even include any firewire-based digital sound gear that I might want to use.) If I have anything to apologize for, it's just for not thinking of every single question all at once.

My focus was to get some good facts before I go out and invest so much money in a Mac. And, believe me, the information I've seen here has been most helpful, especially in contrast to the aforementioned sparring Ive often seen on other websites. Thank you so much to everyone who has contributed!!

I'd like to think that we're all friends here, and I believe that basically is true. So, this is just a little reminder/suggestion: one doesn't have to post a reply at all to any message, anywhere, any time. And, if one does post something, putting facts in and leaving negative comments out will actually help shorten the discussion significantly, without anyone feeling a need to be defensive, and, of course, without folks getting upset with one another.

I really cannot tell you all how helpful it has been to hear your feedback. I don't have the expertise that you all do and there's no way in such a short amount of time that I could get the collective experience that you all have. Thank you for sharing your opinions and thoughts. For one thing, it gives me more info. to go to a Mac store with and make the wisest investment that I possibly can.

Thank you.

[terryj]

U R Welcome.

[terryj]

Again false. The true answer is, if your software was HARDWARE specific, then yes, you will have a problem going forward and will need to upgrade.

So why then does Dreamweaver 8 require 10.3 or higher? Why does Adobe Creative Suite 2 require 10.2.8 or later?

soltaris, again, hardware specifics. CS2, I know for a fact was written
to take advantage of Dual Processors, and that coupled with optomized
instruction set from the OS, ( As an OS matures, things do get re-written
to take advantage of new things such as dual processors, dual core processors, new connectivity ports, etc.) things run smoother, faster,
give the user less headaches.

As for Dreamweaver, I can't say, but looking at the requirements for the MX Suite ( which includes dreamweaver) I'd say the same was true:
Optomized OS, re-written code to take advantage of new tech,
(dump older system protocols in favor of what the new stuff does.
No more G3/AGP graphics code, optomize instead for G4/Altivec/Dual Processor), etc., etc., etc.

One thread I did find showed that much
of Dreamweaver 8 HAD been re-written to allow faster FTP'ing,
improvements in Server Panels and CSS diagnostics.
much of that was also tied into the OPERATING SYSTEM, so
that would be one reason why it would need a system upgrade.

see here:
Adobe Cs2, why can't I on a Mac mini?
Dreamweaver8
Dreamweaver 2 better than MX 2004

[Soltaris]

terryj, I'm sorry I still don't understand why that should make a difference. Under Windows I know that developers are able to provide code optimizations for new hardware (such as SSE3, hyperthreading, dual core, etc) while maintaining backward compatibility. This way folks that don't have new hardware can still run the application but just not as fast.

If the reason so many applications require the latest versions of the OS are to support Hardware optimization as you suggest, I can only think of two things that would cause this to come about. Either Apple's developers kit has some serious limitations (see how Windows software can have both backward compatibility and still support hardware optimizations for folks using the latest technology) or developers are trying to cut corners to save money. In the first case Apple has control of that and should be able to resolve it if they choose to. In the second case I'd have no idea how Apple could convince developers to spend the money necessary to get their apps working natively under more revisions of the OS. Maybe this could come about through logo certification testing.

I'm certain the folks at Apple can solve this if they choose to make it a priority. That would certainly make some of my friends using Macs very happy.

[terryj]

In the second case I'd have no idea how Apple could convince developers to spend the money necessary to get their apps working natively under more revisions of the OS. Maybe this could come about through logo certification testing.

LIke any business in this good ol US of A, Adobe, Macromedia,
even Quark, are allowed to cut corners and do whatever is necessary
to increase their bottom line.

I'm not saying I advocate this, nor am I saying that this is
" the way of doing business, ALL business in the USA",
but what i AM saying is that i understand this.

Could Adobe optimize a version of CS2 that runs all the way back
to OS system 7 and Windows 3.1? SURE. but will that get them
monies from Apple for helping push users further in technological adavncement?

Each major Software developer has a stake in the BIG two, and vice versa.
Adobe is privvy to what Apple is doing, and if they don't like something,
well then we get to see "CS3 developement stall to the tune of 18 months."


Make no mistake in this:

When I was asked to spec out an enterprise rollout for Quark 6
for a design group, one of the things I had found out was that
Quark 6 was dropping support for Quark 4 with version 6.
Asking around,
led me to a reputable inside Quark Regional rep who gave me the
bottom line: Quark had comed to believe that (a) it was too
costly to maintain support for versions two times back and
(b) for them to be competitive with Adobe, they had to make sure
Quark 6 was OS X savy and took advantage of ALL OSX Technologies,
and thus there would be NO room for OS 9 support or earlier version
support, save for ONE revsion back.

In doing this, they say they have made Quark profitable.

Adobe, meanwhile quietly followed suit, eliminating
OS 9 versions of its apps, and began dialing down
support for all but three versions back of
Illustrator and Photoshop.

We don't like it, but it is a way these companies see themselves
stayng competitive and profitable. Plus, by getting you to buy
into new OS's new Machines, etc., all of technology's manufacturers
benefit from every little push.

There's just no money in it for every iteration of an OS
to be supported in a release of a top selling app.
And on the windows side, Count how many BIG apps support
Windows ME? Last I looked, NONE.
Why, probably because there's no profit in it, only in 98 or XP, the two
major ( by M$ account) iliterations of its OS in Use by the vast
majority of Businesses and Consumers combined.

Apple doesn't have that luxury, as Apple has ( successfully)
steered the majority of its user base to some varation of OSX.
Not everyone is a Tiger adopter, Panther is still in use, as is Jaguar
in many, many users households.
However OS9 users rival those of Windows ME users, fading fast,
like ghosts in the wind.