Printable View
If budgets will stretch to a 27", go fo it. Yes its big, but the resolution is excellent and really makes for an efficient use of space and good workflow. Its also good for catching up on missed episodes of Top Gear whilst doing "proper work" on another part of the screen!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranga
I thought that's what dual screens were for :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Yorkshire_Jon
I used to run dual 22" monitors. Now I just run a single 27" monitor and way prefer it! Amazing how quick it stops seeming to large and just becomes the norm...Quote:
Originally Posted by stuee
At the end of the day it boils down to "You get what you pay for".
With a Mac you don't only pay for the sleek unibody aluminium chassis (the strongest consumer laptop on the market) though you pay for the brilliant support and awesome operating system that ships with the unit.
Microsoft is a software company and write their operating system for a wide variety of hardware - most of which is treated differently by the OS. This means that the MS developers have to ensure that Windows will work with all the PC's on the market.
The fact of the matter is, is that Windows has and always will experience more bugs than Mac. Although Windows is a more popular operating system and has more application support - Apple products are designed for the human. They have the most intuitive user interface of any software on the market and when something goes wrong the staff at the Genius bar are always there to assist.
As said earlier in the post, and Apple computer will run both Windows and OSX - and has the ability to run Windows from within OSX. They are well built and I'm yet to encounter a problem with the operating system. OSX is the standard in creative work (Video, Audio, Publishing) and there is a reason why to that.
You do get what you pay for, and although Macs are expensive, it will last you much longer than any PC.
... Or build a linux machine :P
My Mac Lappy is sitting running:
OS X Lion
Debian
Ubuntu
Win XP sp3
Win 7
That may be true up to a point, but there are those of us who manage quite well with a machine that cost us nothing because it was a few years old and was about to be scrapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexturner
We install a distro of Linux that recognises all of the associated hardware and somehow we avoid all the chasing drivers and "dependency hell" that other seem to do to occupy their time or that people who haven't tried recent versions of Linux think is necessary.
We paid nothing for the hardware or the software and yet it does the job admirably. I think we got more than we paid for. :D
The mother board of my PC (5 years old) is full of corrosion caused by sea salt in the enviroment.
For sure by the end of the year I will need to replace it.
I just wonder how much will cost an Apple with twin boot HDD 500gb runing on Raid 5 plus twin 1T HDD for data running on Raid as well plus 8Gb ram and 1GB graphic card for 2 monitors.
I think that a PC based system will be cheaper and near the beach will last as long as the Apple.
Quad Core with 4 x 1tb drives and raid plus 2x 1gb graphic cards and 8gb ram would be about $5k in a Mac ProQuote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
A 27" quad core iMac with 8gb ram, 2tb hd and 256gb ssd for swap drive, 2gb graphics card, and does dual monitor STD (but you won't need it) is $3700.00
Add an external 4x 2tb raid for $1600.00
So for a far superior set up it's $5300.00
Not bad value!!!
As a comparison.
Dell quad core, 2gb video, 2tb hdd raid (mirror only), 8gb ram and no extra raid 5 is $3200.00
I will go with a PC based on an Intel system and Seagate Enterprise edition drivers for about $ 1500 and get an extra Samsung 23"monitor on the top of my 19" from my old PC.
The saving of about $ 3800 against the Apple will go towards a couple of nice Nikon lens :)
It is not good to get Dell or other brand of PC the best is get an Intel based system assembled by your local trusty supplier.