Mac vs PC

[M Most]

I don't really care about things like GUI's, particular file systems, or screen displays. I prefer OS X because it's Unix, and as such has a pretty robust set of tools that operate in a standard way. That allows for easy scripting (both using the standard command shell and specific standard scripting languages like Python), very rapid file manipulation, access to a whole lot of open source software, robust networking, and, in general, a lot of good things for those who know Linux or Unix reasonably well.

I think you would find that once you get past the individual user with personal preferences based on personal needs, most companies of size who have settled on Macs in this industry have done so for the reasons I just stated, not because of anything else.

[Bruce Ingram]

Some users love to push the envelope, some just want dependability.

Just a note on reliability. Between my iMac and my PC (running Windows 7 Pro), my apps on my Mac will crash more often than apps on my PC by far (usually FCP7 or a web browser), and neither system has crashed at the system level since they have been running. Essentially they both have similar stability records (in my sample). More often than not, a very unstable Windows system is less the OS and more the user.

Windows OS also tends to be more cluttered with profit motivated add-ons

Again, that is less Windows and more the system vendor. A Windows install from a standard disk is pretty barebones. Buy an eMachine or HP consumer system and that's where all that preinstalled crap comes from. Come Christmas time, this is a huge headache for me.

Jeff - Totally see what you mean with the upgrade issue on the towers.

As far as GUI, to be honest neither is the end-all-be-all in my opinion. They both get in my way at the most frustrating times and both are so candy now that I can barely stand it. In my perfect OS, it would be a mix between a command-line interface with a minimal GUI for file management. I really only care about the GUI of whatever app I'm in, I can live without a pretty desktop, but that's just me.

[Stephen Townsend]

Very interesting Most. Interesting to hear a decision for mac based on something other than the usual!

[Jeff Whitehurst]

Just a note on reliability. Between my iMac and my PC (running Windows 7 Pro), my apps on my Mac will crash more often than apps on my PC by far (usually FCP7 or a web browser), and neither system has crashed at the system level since they have been running. Essentially they both have similar stability records (in my sample). More often than not, a very unstable Windows system is less the OS and more the user.

Of course your experience is a valid example that both OS choices have problems, my experience is different. My statement was actually not simply a criticism of the Windows OS, but rather I was pointing out the endless customization opportunities (with associated pitfalls) in the Windows box market, which is often cited as a primary motivator for choosing the Windows platform. Some people love that DIY stuff, others like me would rather have reliability.

Again, that is less Windows and more the system vendor. A Windows install from a standard disk is pretty barebones. Buy an eMachine or HP consumer system and that's where all that preinstalled crap comes from. Come Christmas time, this is a huge headache for me.

My opinion is that because Microsoft makes their OS available to these third party vendors to add the "preinstalled crap", it creates an environment of susceptibility. Let's don't forget the other garbage that gets "installed" just by simply going online unprotected. Microsoft largely profits from the actual OS and third party deals, not hardware. Apple primarily wants us to buy their hardware, which gives them a powerful incentive to make the OS reliable.

[Robert Kurhajetz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeOHE...e_gdata_player

Sometimes it feels like this :]

[Scott Shropshire]

No one has even touched on the overclocking potential of pc hardware. If you know what you're doing and build a computer with water cooling you can run a sandybridge intel cpu safely and stable at 4.5ghz+ 24/7. Add 2-4 580 overclocked watercooled graphics cards or a red rocket and 5k footage becomes butter along with any vfx work! My work pc is currently a dual 5690 xeon system overclocked from 3.46GHz to 4.25ghz using an evga sr-2 motherboard with 48gigs of ram, 2 msi gtx 580 lightning xtreme 3gb graphics cards each overclocked from 832mhz to 1ghz on the core. Both cpus and gpus are watercooled. I also have a red rocket and an arcea raid card running an 8 ssd raid for 5k editing. The system screams and makes epic footage in premiere and resolve a lot of fun to work on! I think overclocking unlocks free performance in hardware especially in intel cpus! It's also a lot of fun, like modding your cars engine for more horsepower except it's free! Just 1 advantage to pc hardware. The disadvantage though is that it does take some time to learn how to do and every system/ configuration acts a little differently. Although Asus now has auto overclocking settings in their new motherboard efi bios' that make it very easy to do now :)

[Nick Wernham]

I find the UI on the Mac to be cleaner and less obstructive. Windows feels as if they have tried to make things overly friendly and beautify it in a lipstick on a pig sort of way. Windows, really starting with XP to some extent, but more so with Vista and Win7, has that artificially friendly feeling. I don't know how else to explain it.

I know precisely what you mean and have a hard time explaining it. With that said, when it came time to purchase a new computer for editing Red footage I went with a PC because the current generation of Mac Pros just do not seem future proof enough. They aren't nearly as powerful as a similarly expensive PC (mostly because of the difference in GPU performance). I do love my Mid-2010 MacBook Pro though. Apple has really hit a sweet spot for performance, size and battery life with their laptops that most manufacturers of Windows laptops struggle to match. I hear that Lenovo is good, but I haven't used one of their systems.

[George Butterfield]

I'd like to see this discussion but only in relation to processing r3d files.

[Subhadip Sen]

As far as GUI, to be honest neither is the end-all-be-all in my opinion. They both get in my way at the most frustrating times and both are so candy now that I can barely stand it. In my perfect OS, it would be a mix between a command-line interface with a minimal GUI for file management. I really only care about the GUI of whatever app I'm in, I can live without a pretty desktop, but that's just me.

I couldn't agree more! I am not sure which is more cheesy, the fake wood / fake metal on OS X Lion or the fake glass on Windows 7? Overall, I give the edge to the Windows 7 UI - leaving the aesthetic aside - for the attention to detail. I have been using Windows 7 for 3 years now, and even today I find minor details which all add up. Most importantly, it is extremely customizable. You can strip it down, you can build it up, you can even make it look identical to OS X!

Either way, all of today's classic desktop interfaces I am familiar with - Windows 7, OS X Lion, Unity (Ubuntu) and Gnome (Linux) - between them are very, very similar but unfortunately extremely cumbersome. I didn't realize it till a few months back when I stumbled on to something that radically altered my computing experience.

That was Windows 8's Metro UI. After about 5 months of the Developer/Consumer Previews, I am convinced Metro is the future. The genius - I don't use this word liberally, I don't think I have ever used it in conjunction with software ever before - of Metro UI is that there is no UI. Gone is chrome, gone are icons, gone are windows. Everything is "authentically digital", there's no candy (as you put it) of any sort. It is not an interface, it's a whole new design language where the content is the interface. Live tiles are brilliant too - the Start Screen updates with information from the apps in a suspended state. You only open apps when the updates inform you that you need to directly interact with them. Once you open the app, the OS gets out of the way completely - the entire screen is devoted to your app. At the same time, all apps are tightly interconnected and built to share between each other. Along with Kinect for Windows, we are looking at the first steps to the Natural UI era. There's obviously a whole lot more to Metro, but I will stop here. Needless to say, I have to drop back to the classical interface for getting work done, and it is a real chore.

However, Metro is just beginning, it has its drawbacks and limitations in its current form. The writing's on the wall - Windows 8 is headed for disaster, at least on the desktop. It's way too much of a paradigm shift. It is great to see Microsoft committing to it, however. The transition will be harsh, I wouldn't be surprised if Metro is not embraced by the likes of Adobe Creative Suite till Windows 9. In the near future (think Windows 11), Metro will take us here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6cNd...layer_embedded.

For the foreseeable future, I think we will be dropping back to the classical interface for productivity applications. Luckily, Windows 8 will have a completely overhauled desktop interface as well, which will once again be "authentically digital", all the make-up removed.

I have gone completely off topic, I do apologize.

Back on topic, I think it all boils down to - Choice. I think this has been covered aptly in the first two replies by Tim and Paul (and more since), though I do see merit in Apple's walled garden approach as well. The problem with choice is that there's such a thing as bad choice.

[Shapour Daneshmand]

Tim,
this discussion will not degenerate.
I have used IBM based computers since 1986 and from 1993 i have used PCs exclusively for non linear editing.
in 2009 i was forced to use mac because i had to edit a project on FCP.
since then i never looked back and i hope i will never have to.